^Kxmdh  (^xt^cn. 


The  Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel: 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCES. 


BY 


EZRA   ABBOT,    D.D.,  LL.D., 

Buisey  Professor  of  New  Tettament  Criticism  and  Interpretation 
in  the  Divinity  School  of  Harvard  University. 


BOSTON: 

Geo.  H.  Ellis,  ioi  Milk  Street. 
1880. 


b* 


Copyright,  1880, 

by 

Geo.  H.  Ellis. 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 


The  following  essay  was  read,  in  part,  before  the  "  Ministers'  Insti- 
tute," at  its  public  meeting  last  October,  in  Providence,  R.I.  In  con- 
sidering the  external  evidences  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  as- 
cribed to  John,  it  was  out  of  the  question,  under  the  circumstances,  to 
undertake  anything  more  than  the  discussion  of  a  few  important  points ; 
and  even  these  could  not  be  properly  treated  within  the  time  allowed. 

In  revising  the  paper  for  the  Unitarian  Review  (February,  ]\Iarch, 
June,  1880),  and,  with  additions  and  corrections,  for  the  volume  of  "  In 
stitute  Essays,"  I  have  greatly  enlarged  some  parts  of  it,  particularly 
that  relating  to  the  evidence  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  used  by  Justin 
Martyr.  The  consideration  of  his  quotations  and  of  the  hypotheses  con- 
nected with  them  has  given  occasion  to  the  long  Notes  appended  to  the 
essay,  in  which  will  be  found  the  results  of  some  original  investigation. 
But  the  circumstances  under  which  the  essay  is  printed  have  compelled 
me  to  treat  other  parts  of  the  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  this 
Gospel  less  thoroughly  than  I  wished,  and  on  certain  points  to  content 
myself  with  mere  references.  It  has  also  been  necessary  to  give  in  a 
translation  many  quotations  which  scholars  would  have  preferred  to  see 
in  the  original ;  but  the  translation  has  been  made  as  literal  as  the  Eng- 
lish idiom  would  permit,  and  precise  references  to  the  passages  cited  are 

always  given  for  the  benefit  of  the  critical  student. 

E.  A. 

Cambridge,  Mass.,  May  21,  i88a 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/autliorsliipoffourOOabboiala 


THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCES. 


The  problem  of  the  Fourth  Gospel — that  is,  the  question  of 
its  authorship  and  historical  value  —  requires  for  its  complete 
solution  a  consideration  of  many  collateral  questions  which 
are  still  in  debate.  Until  these  are  gradually  disposed  of  by 
thorough  investigation  and  discussion,  we  can  hardly  hope 
for  a  general  agreement  on  the  main  question  at  issue. 
Such  an  agreement  among  scholars  certainly  does  not  at 
present  exist.  Since  the  "epoch-making"  essay  (to  borrow 
a  favorite  phrase  of  the  Germans)  of  Ferdinand  Christian 
Baur,  in  the  Theologische  Jahrbilcher  for  1844,  there  has 
indeed  been  much  shifting  of  ground  on  the  part  of  the 
opponents  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel ;  but  among  schol- 
ars of  equal  learning  and  ability,  as  Hilgenfeld,  Keim,  Schol- 
ten,  Hausrath,  Renan,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Godet,  Beyschlag, 
Luthardt,  Weiss,  Lightfoot,  on  the  other,  opinions  are  yet 
divided,  with  a  tendency,  at  least  in  Germany,  toward  the 
denial  of  its  genuineness.  Still,  some  of  these  collateral 
questions  of  which  I  have  spoken  seem  to  be  approaching  a 
settlement.  I  may  notice  first  one  of  the  most  important, 
the  question  whether  the  relation  of  the  Apostle  John  to 
Jewish  Christianity  was  not  such  that  it  is  impossible  to 
suppose  the  Fourth  Gospel  to  have  proceeded  from  him, 
even  at  a  late  period  of  his  life.  This  is  a  fundamental 
postulate  of  the  theory  of  the  Tiibingen  School,  in  regard  to 


8 

the  opposition  of  Paul  to  the  three  great  Apostles,  Peter, 
James,  and  John.  The  Apostle  John,  they  say,  wrote  the 
Apocalypse,  the  most  Jewish  of  all  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament ;  but  he  could  not  have  written  the  anti-Judaic 
Gospel.  Recognizing  most  fully  the  great  service  which 
Baur  and  his  followers  have  rendered  to  the  history  of  primi- 
tive Christianity  by  their  bold  and  searching  investigations, 
I  think  it  may  be  said  that  there  is  a  wide-spread  and  deep- 
ening conviction  among  fair-minded  scholars  that  the  theory 
of  the  Tiibingen  School,  in  the  form  in  which  it  has  been 
presented  by  the  coryphaei  of  the  party,  as  Baur,  Schwegler, 
Zeller,  is  an  extreme  view,  resting  largely  on  a  false  interpre- 
tation of  many  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  and  a  false 
view  of  many  early  Christian  writings.  Matthew  Arnold's 
protest  against  the  excessive  "  vigour  and  rigour "  of  the 
Tiibingen  theories  brings  a  good  deal  of  plain  English  com- 
mon-sense to  bear  on  the  subject,  and  exposes  well  some  of 
the  extravagances  of  Baur  and  others.*  Still  more  weight  is 
to  be  attached  to  the  emphatic  dissent  of  such  an  able  and 
thoroughly  independent  scholar  as  Dr.  James  Donaldson,  the 
author  of  the  Critical  History  of  Christian  Literature  and 
Doctrine,  a  work  unhappily  unfinished.  But  very  significant 
is  the  remarkable  article  of  Keim  on  the  Apostolic  Council 
at  Jerusalem,  in  his  latest  work,  Aiis  don  Urchristenthum 
("Studies  in  the  History  of  Early  Christianity"),  published 
in  1878,  a  short  time  before  his  lamented  death.  In  this 
able  essay,  he  demolishes  the  foundation  of  the  Tiibingen 
theory,  vindicating  in  the  main  the  historical  character  of 
the  account  in  the  Acts,  and  exposing  the  misinterpretation 
of  the  passage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  on  which  Baur 
and  his  followers  found  their  view  of  the  absolute  contradic- 
tion between  the  Acts  and  the  Epistle.  Holtzmann,  Lipsius, 
Pfleiderer,  and  especially  Weizsiicker  had  already  gone  far  in 
modifying  the  extreme  view  of  Baur ;  but  this  essay  of  Keira's 
is  a  re-examination  of  the  whole  question  with  reference  to 
all  the  recent  discussions.     The  still  later  work  of  Schenkel, 

*  See  his  God  and  the  BU>U,  Preface,  and  chaps,  v.,  vi. 


published  during  the  present  year  (1879),  Das  Christusbild 
der  Apostel  und  der  tiachapostolischen  Zeit  ("  The  Picture  of 
Christ  presented  by  the  Apostles  and  by  the  Post-Apostolic 
Time"),  is  another  conspicuous  example  of  the  same  reac- 
tion.    Schenkel  remarks  in  the  Preface  to  this  volume  :  — 

Having  never  been  able  to  convince  myself  of  the  sheer  opposition 
between  Petrinism  and  Paulinism,  it  has  also  never  been  possible  for  me 
to  get  a  credible  conception  of  a  reconciliation  effected  by  means  of  a 
literature  sailing  between  the  contending  parties  under  false  colors. 
In  respect  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in  particular,  I  have  been  led  in 
part  to  different  results  from  those  represented  by  the  modern  critical 
school.  I  have  been  forced  to  the  conviction  that  it  is  a  far  more  trust- 
worthy source  of  information  than  is  commonly  allowed  on  the  part  of 
the  modern  criticism ;  that  older  documents  worthy  of  credit,  besides 
the  well-known  ?f  ^-source,  are  contained  in  it ;  and  that  the  Paulinist 
who  composed  it  has  not  intentionally  distorted  {entstellt)  the  facts,  but 
only  placed  them  in  the  light  in  which  they  appeared  to  him  and  must 
have  appeared  to  him  from  the  time  and  circumstances  under  which  he 
wrote.  He  has  not,  in  my  opinion,  artificially  brought  upon  the  stage 
either  a  Paulinized  Peter,  or  a  Petrinized  Paul,  in  order  to  mislead  his 
readers,  but  has  portrayed  the  two  apostles  just  as  he  actually  conceived 
of  them  on  the  basis  of  his  incomplete  information.    (Preface,  pp.  x.,  xi.) 

It  would  be  hard  to  find  two  writers  more  thoroughly  inde- 
pendent, whatever  else  may  be  said  of  them,  than  Keim  and 
Schenkel.  Considering  their  well-known  position,  they  will 
hardly  be  stigmatized  as  "apologists"  in  the  contemptuous 
sense  in  which  that  term  is  used  by  some  recent  writers,  who 
seem  to  imagine  that  they  display  their  freedom  from  par- 
tisan bias  by  giving  their  opponents  bad  names.  On  this 
subject  of  the  one-sidedness  of  the  Tiibingen  School,  I  might 
also  refer  to  the  very  valuable  remarks  of  Professor  Fisher 
in  his  recent  work  on  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  and 
in  his  earlier  volume  on  The  Supernatural  Origin  of  Chris- 
tianity. One  of  the  ablest  discussions  of  the  question  will 
also  be  found  in  the  Essay  on  "  St.  Paul  and  the  Three," 
appended  to  the  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
by  Professor  Lightfoot,  now  Bishop  of  Durham,  a  scholar  who 
has  no  superior  among  the  Germans  in  breadth  of  learning 
and  thoroughness  of  research.     The  dissertation  of  Professor 


lO 

Jowett  on  "St.  Paul  and  the  Twelve,"  though  not  very  defi- 
nite in  its  conclusions,  likewise  deserves  perusal.* 

In  regard  to  this  collateral  question,  then,  I  conceive  that 
decided  progress  has  been  made  in  a  direction  favorable  to 
the  possibility  (to  put  it  mildly)  of  the  Johannean  authorship 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  We  do  not  know  anything  concern- 
ing the  theological  position  of  the  Apostle  John,  which  justi- 
fies us  in  assuming  that  twenty  years  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  he  could  not  have  written  such  a  work. 

Another  of  these  collateral  questions,  on  which  a  vast 
amount  has  been  written,  and  on  which  very  confident  and 
very  untenable  assertions  have  been  made,  may  now,  I 
believe,  be  regarded  as  set  at  rest,  so  far  as  concerns  our 
present  subject,  the  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  I 
refer  to  the  history  of  the  Paschal  controversies  of  the 
second  century.  The  thorough  discussion  of  this  subject  by 
Schiirer,  formerly  Professor  Extraordinarius  at  Leipzig,  and 
now  Professor  at  Giessen,  the  editor  of  the  Theologische 
Literaturzeitung,  and  author  of  the  excellent  Neutestament- 
liche  Zeitgeschichte,  has  clearly  shown,  I  believe,  that  no 
argument  against  the  Johannean  authorship  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  can  be  drawn  from  the  entangled  history  of  these 
controversies.  His  essay,  in  which  the  whole  previous  litera- 
ture of  the  subject  is  carefully  reviewed,  and  all  the  original 
sources  critically  examined,  was  published  in  Latin  at 
Leipzig  in  1869  under  the  title  De  Controversiis  Paschalibus 
secundo  post  Christum  natuni  Saeculo  exortis,  and  afterwards 
in  a  German  translation  in  Kahnis's  Zeitschrift  far  die 
historische  Theologie  for  1870,  pp.  182-284.  There  is,  accord- 
ing to  him,  absolutely  no  evidence  that  the  Apostle  John 
celebrated  Easter  with  the  Quartodecimans  on  the  14th  of 
Nisan  in  commemoration,  as  is  so  often  assumed,  of  the  day 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.    The  choice  of  the  day  had  no  reference 

•  In  his  work  on  The  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Thessalonians,  Galatians,  Romans,  ad  ed. 
(London,  JS59),  i.  417-477;  reprinted  in  a  less  complete  form  from  the  first  edition  in  Noyes's 
Theol.  Essays  (1856),  p.  357  ff.  The  very  judicious  remarks  of  Mr.  Norton  on  the  difference 
between  Paul  and  the  other  Apostles,  and  between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians,  in  his  article 
on  the  "Authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,"  in  the  Christian  Examiner  for  May,  1829, 
■vol.  vL  p.  200  £E.,  are  still  worth  reading. 


II 

to  that  event,  nor  on  the  other  hand,  as  Weitzel  and  Steitz 
maintain,  to  the  supposed  day  of  Christ's  death,  but  was 
determined  by  the  fact  that  the  14th  was  the  day  of  the 
Jewish  Passover,  for  which  the  Christian  festival  was  substi- 
tuted. The  celebration  was  Christian,  but  the  day  adopted 
by  John  and  the  Christians  of  Asia  Minor  generally  was  the 
day  of  the  Jewish  Passover,  the  14th  of  Nisan,  on  whatever 
day  of  the  week  it  might  fall,  while  the  Western  Christians 
generally,  without  regard  to  the  day  of  the  month,  celebrated 
Easter  on  Sunday,  in  commemoration  of  the  day  of  the 
resurrection.  This  is  the  view  essentially  of  Liicke,  Gieseler, 
Bleek,  De  Wette,  Hase,  and  Riggenbach,  with  differences  on 
subordinate  points ;  but  Schiirer  has  made  the  case  clearer 
than  any  other  writer.  Schiirer  is  remarkable  among  Ger- 
man scholars  for  a  calm,  judicial  spirit,  and  for  thoroughness 
of  investigation;  and  his  judgment  in  this  matter  is  the 
more  worthy  of  regard,  as  he  does  not  receive  the  Gospel  of 
John  as  genuine.  A  good  exposition  of  the  subject,  founded 
on  Schiirer's  discussion,  may  be  found  in  Luthardt's  work  on 
the  Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  of  which  an  English 
translation  has  been  published,  with  an  Appendix  by  Dr. 
Gregory  of  Leipzig,  giving  the  literature  of  the  whole  con- 
troversy on  the  authorship  of  the  Gospel  far  more  completely 
than  it  has  ever  before  been  presented. 

Another  point  may  be  mentioned,  as  to  which  there  has 
come  to  be  a  general  agreement ;  namely,  that  the  very  late 
date  assigned  to  the  Gospel  by  Baur  and  Schwegler, 
namely,  somewhere  between  the  years  160  and  170  a.d., 
cannot  be  maintained.  Zeller  and  Scholten  retreat  to  150; 
Hilgenfeld,  who  is  at  last  constrained  to  admit  its  use  by 
Justin  Martyr,  goes  back  to  between  130  and  140;  Renan 
now  says  125  or  130 ;  Keim  in  the  first  volume  of  his  History 
of  yesus  of  Nazara  placed  it  with  great  confidence  between 
the  years  no  and  1 15,  or  more  loosely,  a.d.  100-117.*  The 
fatal  consequences  of  such  an  admission  as  that  were,  how- 
ever, soon  perceived ;  and  in  the  last  volume  of  his  History 

*  Geschichte  fesu  von  Nazara,  i.  155,  comp.  146  (Eng.  trans,  i.  211,  comp.  199). 


12 

of  Jesus,  and  in  the  last  edition  of  his  abridgment  of  that 
work,  he  goes  back  to  the  year  130.*  Schenkel  assigns  it 
to  A.D.   1 15-120.  t 

This  enforced  shifting  of  the  date  of  the  Gospel  to  the 
earlier  part  of  the  second  century  (which  I  may  remark  inci- 
dentally is  fatal  to  the  theory  that  its  author  borrowed  from 
Justin  Martyr  instead  of  Justin  from  John)  at  once  pre- 
sents very  serious  difficulties  on  the  supposition  of  the 
spuriousness  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  the  uniform  tradition, 
supported  by  great  weight  of  testimony,  that  the  Evangelist 
John  lived  to  a  very  advanced  age,  spending  the  latter  por- 
tion of  his  life  in  Asia  Minor,  and  dying  there  in  the  reign  of 
Trajan,  not  far  from  a.d.  100.  How  could  a  spurious  Gos- 
pel of  a  character  so  peculiar,  so  different  from  the  earlier 
Synoptic  Gospels,  so  utterly  un historical  as  it  is  affirmed  to 
be,  gain  currency  as  the  work  of  the  Apostle  both  among 
Christians  and  the  Gnostic  heretics,  if  it  originated  only 
twenty-five  or  thirty  years  after  his  death,  when  so  many 
who  must  have  known  whether  he  wrote  such  a  work  or  not 
were  still  living .? 

The  feeling  of  this  difficulty  seems  to  have  revived  the 
theory,  put  forward,  to  be  sure,  as  long  ago  as  1840  by  a 
very  wild  German  writer,  Liitzelberger,  but  which  Baur  and 
Strauss  deemed  unworthy  of  notice,  that  the  Apostle  John 
was  never  in  Asia  Minor  at  all.  This  view  has  recently 
found  strenuous  advocates  in  Keim,  Scholten,  and  others, 
though  it  is  rejected  and,  I  believe,  fully  refuted  by  critics 
of  the  same  school,  as  Hilgenfeld.  The  historical  evidence 
against  it  seems  to  me  decisive ;  and  to  attempt  to  support 
it,  as  Scholten  does,  by  purely  arbitrary  conjectures,  such  as 
the  denial  of  the  genuineness  of  the  letter  of  Irenaeus  to 
Florinus,  can  only  give  one  the  impression  that  the  writer 
has  a  desperate  cause.J 

*  Geschichie  Jesu  .  .  ./u.r  tveilere  Kreise,  3«  Hearbeitung,  2*  Aufl.  (1875),  p.  40. 

\Das  Charakterbild  Jesu,  n<^  Aufl.  (1873),  p.  370. 

tSee  Hilgenfeld,  Hist.  Krit.  Einlcitung  in  d.  N.  T.  (1875),  p.  394  ff. ;  Bleek,  Einl.  in  d. 
N.  T.,  3*  Aufl.  (1875),  p.  167  ff.,  with  Mangold's  note;  Fisher,  The  Beginnings  0/  Christianity 
(1877),  P-  3»7  ff-     Compare  Renan,  VAntechrist,  p.  557  ff. 


13 

Thus  far  we  have  noticed  a  few  points  connected  with  the 
controversy  about  the  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  in 
respect  to  which  some  progress  may  seem  to  have  been  made 
since  the  time  of  Baur,  Others  will  be  remarked  upon  inci- 
dentally, as  we  proceed.  But  to  survey  the  whole  field  of 
discussion  in  an  hour's  discourse  is  impossible.  To  treat  the 
question  of  the  historical  evidence  with  any  thoroughness 
would  require  a  volume ;  to  discuss  the  internal  character  of 
the  Gospel  in  its  bearings  on  the  question  of  its  genuineness 
and  historical  value  would  require  a  much  larger  one.  All 
therefore  which  I  shall  now  attempt  will  be  to  consider  some 
points  of  the  historical  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  as  follows:  — 

1.  The  general  reception  of  the  Four  Gospels  as  genuine 
among  Christians  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century. 

2.  The  question  respecting  the  inclusion  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  in  the  Apostolical  Memoirs  of  Christ  appealed  to  by 
Justin  Martyr. 

3.  Its  use  by  the  various  Gnostic  sects. 

4.  The  attestation  to  this  Gospel  which  has  come  down 
to  us  appended  to  the  book  itself. 

I  begin  with  the  statement,  which  cannot  be  questioned, 
that  our  present  four  Gospels,  and  no  others,  were  received 
by  the  great  body  of  Christians  as  genuine  and  sacred  books 
during  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century.  This  appears 
most  clearly  from  the  writings  of  Irenaeus,  born  not  far  from 
A.D.  125-130,  whose  youth  was  spent  in  Asia  Minor,  and  who 
became  Bishop  of  Lyons  in  Gaul,  a.d.  178;  of  Clement,  the 
head  of  the  Catechetical  School  at  Alexandria  about  the  year 
190,  who  had  travelled  in  Greece,  Italy,  Syria,  and  Pales- 
tine, seeking  religious  instruction ;  and  of  Tertullian,  in 
North  Africa,  who  flourished  toward  the  close  of  the  century. 
The  four  Gospels  are  found  in  the  ancient  Syriac  version  of 
the  New  Testament,  the  Peshito,  made  in  the  second  century, 
the  authority  of  which  has  the  more  weight  as  it  omits  the 
Second  and  Third  Epistles  of  John,  Second  Peter,  Jude,  and 
the  Apocalypse,  books  whose  authorship  was  disputed  in  the 
early  Church.     Their  existence  in  the  Old  Latin  version  also 


^4 

attests  their  currency  in  North  Africa,  where  that  version 
originated  some  time  in  the  second  century.  They  appear, 
moreover,  in  the  Muratorian  Canon,  written  probably  about 
A.D.  170,  the  oldest  list  of  canonical  books  which  has  come 
down  to  us. 

Mr.  Norton  in  his  work  on  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels 
argues  with  great  force  that,  when  we  take  into  considera- 
tion the  peculiar  character  of  the  Gospels,  and  the  character 
and  circumstances  of  the  community  by  which  they  were 
received,  the  fact  of  their  universal  reception  at  this  period 
admits  of  no  reasonable  explanation  except  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  they  are  genuine.  I  do  not  here  contend  for  so 
broad  an  inference  :  I  only  maintain  that  this  fact  proves 
that  our  four  Gospels  could  not  have  originated  at  this 
period,  but  must  have  been  in  existence  long  before;  and 
that  some  very  powerful  influence  must  have  been  at  work  to 
effect  their  universal  reception.  I  shall  not  recapitulate 
Mr.  Norton's  arguments  ;  but  I  would  call  attention  to  one 
point  on  which  he  justly  lays  great  stress,  though  it  is  often 
overlooked  ;  namely,  that  the  main  evidence  for  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospels  is  of  an  altogether  different  kind  from 
that  which  can  be  adduced  for  the  genuineness  of  any  classi- 
cal work.  It  is  not  the  testimony  of  a  few  eminent  Christian 
writers  to  their  private  opinion,  but  it  is  the  evidence  which 
they  afford  of  the  belief  of  the  whole  body  of  Christians;  and 
this,  not  in  respect  to  ordinary  books,  whose  titles  they 
might  easily  take  on  trust,  but  respecting  books  in  which 
they  were  most  deeply  interested ;  books  which  were  the 
very  foundation  of  that  faith  which  separated  them  from  the 
world  around  them,  exposed  them  to  hatred,  scorn,  and  per- 
secution, and  often  demanded  the  sacrifice  of  life  itself. 

I  would  add  that  the  greater  the  differences  between  the 
Gospels,  real  or  apparent,  the  more  difficult  it  must  have 
been  for  them  to  gain  this  universal  reception,  except  on  the 
supposition  that  they  had  been  handed  down  from  the  begin- 
ning as  genuine.  This  remark  applies  particularly  to  the 
Fourth  Gospel  when  compared  with  the  first  three. 

The  remains  of  Christian  literature  in  the  first  three  quar- 


15 

ters  of  the  second  century  are  scanty,  and  are  of  such  a  char- 
acter that,  assuming  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  we  have 
really  no  reason  to  expect  more  definite  references  to  their 
writers,  and  more  numerous  quotations  from  or  allusions  to 
them  than  we  actually  do  find  or  seem  to  find.  A  few  letters, 
as  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  to  the  Corinthians,  now 
made  complete  by  the  discovery  of  a  new  MS.  and  of  a  Syriac 
version  of  it ;  the  Epistle  ascribed  to  Barnabas,  now  complete 
in  the  original ;  the  short  Epistle  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philip- 
pians,  and  the  Epistles  (of  very  doubtful  genuineness)  attrib- 
uted to  Ignatius ;  an  allegorical  work,  the  Shepherd  of  Her- 
mas,  which  nowhere  quotes  either  the  Old  Testament  or  the 
New ;  a  curious  romance,  the  Clementine  Homilies ;  and  the 
writings  of  the  Christian  Apologists,  Justin  Martyr,  Tatian, 
Theophilus,  Athenagoras,  Hermias,  who,  in  addressing 
heathens,  could  not  be  expected  to  talk  about  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  which  would  be  to  them  names 
without  significance, —  these  few  documents  constitute 
nearly  all  the  literature  of  the  period.  As  we  should  not 
expect  the  Gospels  to  be  quoted  by  name  in  the  writings  of 
the  Apologists,  though  we  do  find  John  expressly  mentioned 
by  Theophilus,  so  in  such  a  discussion  as  that  of  Justin 
Martyr  with  Trypho  the  Jew,  Justin  could  not  cite  in  direct 
proof  of  his  doctrines  works  the  authority  of  which  the  Jew 
would  not  recognize,  though  he  might  use  them,  as  he  does, 
in  attestation  of  historic  facts  which  he  regarded  as  fulfilling 
prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  author  of  Supernatural  Religion,  in  discussing  the 
evidence  of  the  use  of  our  present  Gospels  in  the  first  three 
quarters  of  the  second  century,  proceeds  on  two  assumptions : 
one,  that  in  the  first  half  of  this  century  vast  numbers  of 
spurious  Gospels  and  other  writings  bearing  the  names  of 
Apostles  and  their  followers  were  in  circulation  in  the  early 
Church ;  and  the  other,  that  we  have  a  right  to  expect 
great  accuracy  of  quotation  from  the  Christian  Fathers, 
especially  when  they  introduce  the  words  of  Christ  with 
such  a  formula  as  "he  said"  or  "he  taught."  Now  this 
last  assumption  admits  of   being  thoroughly  tested,  and  it 


i6 

contradicts  the  most  unquestionable  facts.  Instead  of  such 
accuracy  of  quotation  as  is  assumed  as  the  basis  of  his 
argument,  it  is  beyond  all  dispute  that  the  Fathers  often 
quote  very  loosely,  from  memory,  abridging,  transposing, 
paraphrasing,  amplifying,  substituting  synonymous  words  or 
equivalent  expressions,  combining  different  passages  together, 
and  occasionally  mingling  their  own  inferences  with  their 
citations.  In  regard  to  the  first  assumption,  a  careful  sifting 
of  the  evidence  will  show,  I  believe,  that  there  is  really  no 
J>roo/ tha.t  in  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr  (with  the  possible 
exception  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  which  in 
its  primitive  form  may  have  been  the  Hebrew  original  from 
which  our  present  Greek  Gospel  ascribed  to  Matthew  was 
mainly  derived)  there  was  a  single  work,  bearing  the  title  of 
a  Gospel,  which  as  a  history  of  Christ's  ministry  came  into 
competition  with  our  present  four  Gospels,  or  which  took 
the  place  among  Christians  which  our  Gospels  certainly  held 
in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century.  Much  confusion 
has  arisen  from  the  fact  that  the  term  "  Gospel "  was  in 
ancient  times  applied  to  speculative  works  which  gave  the 
writer's  view  of  the  Gospel,  i.e.,  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  or 
among  the  Gnostics,  which  set  forth  \\i€v!:  gtiosis ;  e.g.,  among 
the  followers  of  Basilides,  Hippolytus  tells  us,  "the  Gospel" 
is  1]  Tuv  vTzepKoaiiiuv  yvuGic,  "  the  knowledge  of  supermundane 
things"  {Re/.  HcBr.  vii,  27).  Again,  the  apocryphal  Gos- 
pels of  the  Nativity  and  the  Infancy,  or  such  works  as  the 
so-called  Gospel  of  Nicodemus,  describing  the  descent  of 
Christ  into  Hades,  have  given  popular  currency  to  the  idea 
that  there  were  floating  about  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  a  great  number  of  Gospels,  rival  histories  of  Christ's 
ministry;  which  these  apocryphal  Gospels,  however,  are  not 
and  do  not  pretend  to  be.  Other  sources  of  confusion,  as 
the  blunders  of  writers  like  Epiphanius,  I  pass  over.  To 
enter  into  a  discussion  and  elucidation  of  this  subject  here 
is  of  course  impossible :  I  will  only  recommend  the  read- 
ing of  Mr.  Norton's  full  examination  of  it  in  the  third  vol- 
ume of  his  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  which  needs,  to  be 
sure,  a  little  supplementing,  but  the  main  positions  of 
which   I  believe  to  be  impregnable. 


17 

Resting  on  these  untenable  assumptions,  the  author  of 
Supernatural  Religion  subjects  this  early  fragmentary  litera- 
ture to  a  minute  examination,  and  explains  away  what  seem 
to  be  quotations  from  or  references  to  our  present  Gospels 
in  these  different  works  as  borrowed  from  some  of  the  multi- 
tudinous Gospels  which  he  assumes  to  have  been  current 
among  the  early  Christians,  especially  if  these  quotations 
and  references  do  not  present  a  perfect  verbal  correspond- 
ence with  our  present  Gospels,  as  is  the  case  with  the  great 
majority  of  them.  Even  if  the  correspondence  is  verbally 
exact,  this  proves  nothing,  in  his  view ;  for  the  quotations  of 
the  words  of  Jesus  might  be  borrowed  from  other  current 
Gospels  which  resembled  ours  as  much  as  Matthew,  Mark, 
and  Luke  resemble  each  other.  But,  if  the  verbal  agreement 
is  not  exact,  we  have  in  his  judgment  a  strong  proof  that  the 
quotations  are  derived  from  some  apocryphal  book.  So  he 
comes  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  no  certain  trace  of  the 
existence  of  our  present  Gospels  for  about  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years  after  the  death  of  Christ;  i.e.,  we  will  say,  till  about 
A.D.  1 80. 

But  here  a  question  naturally  arises :  How  is  it,  if  no  trace 
of  their  existence  is  previously  discoverable,  that  our  four 
Gospels  are  suddenly  found  toward  the  end  of  the  second 
century  to  be  received  as  sacred  books  throughout  the  whole 
Christian  world  .'*  His  reply  is,  "  It  is  totally  unnecessary  for 
me  to  account  for  this."*  He  stops  his  investigation  of  the 
subject  just  at  the  point  where  we  have  solid  facts,  not  con- 
jectures, to  build  upon.  When  he  comes  out  of  the  twilight 
into  the  full  blaze  of  day,  he  shuts  his  eyes,  and  refuses  to 
see  anything.  Such  a  procedure  cannot  be  satisfactory  to  a 
sincere  inquirer  after  the  truth.  The  fallacy  of  this  mode  of 
reasoning  is  so  well  illustrated  by  Mr.  Norton,  that  I  must 
quote  a  few  sentences.     He  says  :  — 

About  the  end  of  the  second  century  the  Gospels  were  reverenced  as 
sacred  books  by  a  community  dispersed  over  the  world,  composed  of 
men  of  different  nations  and  languages.  There  were,  to  say  the  least, 
sixty  thousand  copies  of  them  in  existence ;  f  they  were  read  in  the 

*  Super  natural  Religion,  6th  edition  (1875),  and  7th  edition  (1879),  vol.  i.  p.  ix.    (Preface.) 
tSee  Norton's  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  2d  ed.,  i.  45-54. 


i8 

churches  of  Christians  ;  they  were  continually  quoted,  and  appealed  to, 
as  of  the  highest  authority ;  their  reputation  was  as  well  established 
among  believers  from  one  end  of  the  Christian  community  to  the  other, 
as  it  is  at  the  present  day  among  Christians  in  any  country.  But  it  is 
asserted  that  before  that  period  we  find  no  trace  of  their  existence ;  and 
it  is,  therefore,  inferred  that  they  were  not  in  common  use,  and  but  little 
known,  even  if  extant  in  their  present  form.  This  reasoning  is  of  the 
same  kind  as  if  one  were  to  say  that  the  first  mention  of  Egyptian 
Thebes  is  in  the  time  of  Homer.  He,  indeed,  describes  it  as  a  city 
which  poured  a  hundred  armies  from  its  hundred  gates ;  but  his  is  the 
first  mention  of  it,  and  therefore  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that, 
before  his  time,  it  was  a  place  of  any  considerable  note.* 

As  regards  the  general  reception  of  the  four  Gospels  in 
the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century,  however,  a  slight 
qualification  is  to  be  made.  Some  time  in  the  latter  half  of 
the  second  century,  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  of  John 
was  denied  by  a  few  eccentric  individuals  (we  have  no 
ground  for  supposing  that  they  formed  a  sect),  whom  Epiph- 
anius  {Hizr.  li.,  comp.  liv.)  calls  Alogi  i^K'/Myoi),  a  nickname 
which  has  the  double  meaning  of  "deniers  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Logos,"  and  "  men  without  reason."  They  are  probably 
the  same  persons  as  those  of  whom  Irenseus  speaks  in  one 
passage  {Hcer.  iii.  ii.  §  9),  but  to  whom  he  gives  no  name. 
But  the  fact  that  their  difficulty  with  the  Gospel  was  a 
doctrinal  one,  and  that  they  appealed  to  no  tradition  in  favor 
of  their  view ;  that  they  denied  the  Johannean  authorship  of 
the  Apocalypse  likewise,  and  absurdly  ascribed  both  books 
to  Cerinthus,  who,  unless  all  our  information  about  him  is 
false,  could  not  possibly  have  written  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
shows  that  they  were  persons  of  no  critical  judgment.  Zeller 
admits  (Theol.  yahrb.  1845,  P*  ^45)  that  their  opposition  does 
not  prove  that  the  Gospel  was  not  generally  regarded  in 
their  time  as  of  Apostolic  origin.  The  fact  that  they 
ascribed  the  Fourth  Gospel  to  Cerinthus,  a  heretic  of  the 
first  century,  contemporary  with  the  Apostle  John,  shows 
that  they  could  not  pretend  that  this  Gospel  was  a  recent 
work. 

Further,   while  the    Gnostics   generally  agreed  with    the 

•  Evidences  of  the  Genuinenets  of  the  Gospels,  second  edition,  vol.  i.  pp.  195,  196. 


19 

Catholic  Christians  in  receiving  the  four  Gospels,  and  espe- 
cially the  Gospel  of  John,  which  the  Valentinians,  as  Irenaeus 
tells  us,  used  plenissime  {Hczr.  iii.  ii.  §  7),  the  Marcionites 
are  an  exception.  They  did  not,  however,  question  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  but  regarded  their  authors  as 
under  the  influence  of  Jewish  prejudices.  Marcion  therefore 
rejected  all  but  Luke,  the  Pauline  Gospel,  and  cut  out  from 
this  whatever  he  deemed  objectionable.  We  may  note  here, 
incidentally,  that  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion,  in  the 
first  six  editions  of  his  work,  contended,  in  opposition  to  the 
strongest  evidence,  that  Marcion's  Gospel,  instead  of  being, 
as  all  ancient  testimony  represents  it,  a  mutilated  Luke,  was 
the  earlier,  original  Gospel,  of  which  Luke's  was  a  later 
amplification.  This  theory  was  started  by  Semler,  that 
varium,  mutabile  et  mirabile  capitultim,  as  he  is  called  by  a 
German  writer  (Matthsei,  N.  T.  Gr.,  i.  S^)"/) ;  and  after  having 
been  adopted  by  Eichhorn  and  many  German  critics  was  so 
thoroughly  refuted  by  Hilgenfeld  in  1850,  and  especially  by 
Volkmar  in  1852,  that  it  was  abandoned  by  the  most  eminent 
of  its  former  supporters,  as  Ritschl,  Zeller,  and  partially  by 
Baur.  But  individuals  differ  widely  in  their  power  of  resist- 
ing evidence  opposed  to  their  prejudices,  and  the  author  of 
Supernatural  Religion  has  few  equals  in  this  capacity.  We 
may  therefore  feel  that  something  in  these  interminable 
discussions  is  settled,  when  we  note  the  fact  that  he  has  at 
last  surrendered.  His  conversion  is  due  to  Dr.  Sanday,  who 
in  an  article  in  the  Fortnightly  Review  (June,  1875,  P-  S55>  ff-)» 
reproduced  in  substance  in  his  work  on  The  Gospels  in  the 
Second  Century,  introduced  the  linguistic  argument,  showing 
that  the  very  numerous  and  remarkable  peculiarities  of  lan- 
guage and  style  which  characterize  the  parts  of  Luke  which 
Marcion  retained  are  found  so  fully  and  completely  in  those 
which  he  rejected  as  to  render  diversity  of  authorship  utterly 
incredible. 

But  to  return  to  our  first  point, —  the  unquestioned  recep- 
tion of  our  present  Gospels  throughout  the  Christian  world 
in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century,  and  that,  I  add, 
without  the  least  trace  of  any  previous  controversy  on  the 


20 

subject,  with  the  insignificant  exception  of  the  Alogi  whom  I 
have  mentioned.  This  fact  has  a  most  important  bearing  on 
the  next  question  in  order ;  namely,  whether  the  Apostolical 
Memoirs  to  which  Justin  Martyr  appeals  about  the  middle  of 
the  second  century  were  or  were  not  our  four  Gospels.  To 
discuss  this  question  fully  would  require  a  volume.  All  that 
I  propose  now  is  to  place  the  subject  in  the  light  of  acknowl- 
edged facts,  and  to  illustrate  the  falsity  of  the  premises  from 
which  the  author  of  Sup emaUiral  Religion  reasons. 

The  writings  of  Justin  consist  of  two  Apologies  or  De- 
fences of  Christians  and  Christianity  addressed  to  the  Roman 
Emperor  and  Senate,  the  first  written  most  probably  about 
the  year  146  or  147  (though  many  place  it  in  the  year  138), 
and  a  Dialogue  in  defence  of  Christianity  with  Trypho  the 
Jew,  written  somewhat  later  {Dial.  c.  120,  comp.  Apol.  i.  c. 
26).* 

In  these  writings,  addressed,  it  is  to  be  observed,  to  unbe- 
lievers, he  quotes,  not  in  proof  of  doctrines,  but  as  authority 
for  his  account  of  the  teaching  of  Christ  and  the  facts  in  his 
life,  certain  works  of  which  he  commonly  speaks  as  the 
"Memoirs"  or  "Memorabilia"  of  Christ,  using  the  Greek 
word,  'A^TOfivrifiovevfiaTa,  with  which  we  are  familiar  as  the  desig- 
nation of  the  Memorabilia  of  Socrates  by  Xenophon.  Of 
these  books  he  commonly  speaks  as  the  "Memoirs  by  the 
Apostles,"  using  this  expression  eight  times  ;f  four  times  he 
calls  them  "the  Memoirs"  simply ;  J  once,  "Memoirs  made  by 
the  Apostles  which  are  called  Gospels  "  {Apol.  i.  66) ;  once, 
when  he  cites  a  passage  apparently  from  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
"  Memoirs  composed  by  the  Apostles  of  Christ  and  their 
companions,"  —  literally,  "those  who  followed  with  them" 
(Dial.  c.  103) ;  once  again  {Dial.  c.  106),  when  he  speaks  of  our 
Saviour  as  changing  the  name  of  Peter,  and  of  his  giving  to 
James  and  John  the  name  Boanerges,  a  fact  only  mentioned 

•See  Engelhardt,  Das  Christenthum  Jtistins  des  M'drtyrers  (1878),  p.  71  ff . ;  Renan, 
V EglUe  chritienne  (1879),  p.  367,  n.  4. 

\  Apol.  i.  67;  Dial.  cc.  100,  loi,  102,  103,  104,  106  bU:  to,  aKoiiVTiuovehuaTa  to)v  ano- 
aroAuv  (ruv  anoar.  avrov ,  sc.  Xpiarov,  5  times). 

t  Dial.  cc.  105  itr,  107. 


21 

SO  far  as  we  know  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  he  designates  as 
his  authority  "  Peter's  Memoirs,"  which,  supposing  him  to 
have  used  our  Gospels,  is  readily  explained  by  the  fact  that 
Peter  was  regarded  by  the  ancients  as  furnishing  the  mate- 
rials for  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  his  travelling  companion  and 
interpreter.*  Once  more,  Justin  speaks  in  the  plural  of 
"those  who  have  written  Memoirs,"  oi  dnojuvT/fiovevaavTec,  "of  all 
things  concerning  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  whom  we 
believe "  {Apol.  i.  33)  ;  and,  again,  "  the  Apostles  wrote " 
so  and  so,  referring  to  an  incident  mentioned  in  all  four  of 
the  Gospels  {Dial.  c.  88). 

But  the  most  important  fact  mentioned  in  Justin's  writings 
respecting  these  Memoirs,  which  he  describes  as  "  composed 
by  Apostles  of  Christ  and  their  companions,"  appears  in  his 
account  of  Christian  worship,  in  the  sixty-seventh  chapter  of 
his  First  Apology.  "  On  the  day  called  Sunday,"  he  says, 
"  all  who  live  in  cities  or  in  the  country  gather  together  to 
one  place,  and  the  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles  or  the  writings 
of  the  Prophets  are  read,  as  long  as  time  permits.  When  the 
reader  has  finished,  the  president  admonishes  and  exhorts  to 
the  imitation  of  these  good  things."  It  appears,  then,  that, 
at  the  time  when  he  wrote,  these  books,  whatever  they  were, 
on  which  he  relied  for  his  knowledge  of  Christ's  teaching 
and  life,  were  held  in  at  least  as  high  reverence  as  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Prophets,  were  read  in  the  churches  just  as  our 
Gospels  were  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century,  and 
formed  the  basis  of  the  hortatory  discourse  that  followed. 
The  writings  of  the  Prophets  might  alternate  with  them  in 
this  use  ;  but  Justin  mentions  the  Memoirs  first. 

These  "Memoirs,"  then,  were  well-known   books,  distin- 

•  I  adopt  with  most  scholars  {versus  Semisch  and  Grimm)  the  construction  which  refers  the 
avTov  in  this  passage  not  to  Christ,  but  to  Peter,  in  accordance  with  the  use  of  the  genitive  after 
(nzouvTjfwveiiunTa  everywhere  else  in  Justin.  (See  a  note  on  the  question  in  the  Christian 
Examiner  for  July,  1854,  Ivi.  128  f.)  For  the  statement  in  the  text,  see  Tertullian,  Adv.  Marc. 
IT.  5. :  Licet  et  Marcus  quod  edidit  [evangelium]  Petri  affirmetur,  cujus  interpres  Marcus.  Jerome, 
De  Vir.  ill.  c.  i. :  Sed  et  Evangelium  juxta  Marcum,  qui  auditor  ejus  [sc.  Petri]  et  interpres  fuit, 
hujus  dicitur.  Comp.  ibid.  c.  8,  and  Ep.  120  (al.  150)  ad  Hedib.  c.  11.  See  also  Papias,  ap. 
Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  39;  Irenxus,  Heer.  iii.  1,  §1  (ap.  Euseb.  v.  8);  10,  §6;  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria ap.  Euseb.  ii.  15;  vi.  14;  Origen  ap.  Euseb.  vi.  25;  and  the  striking  passage  of  Eusebius, 
Dtm.  Evani^.  iii.  3,  pp.  I2c4-ia2»,  quoted  by  Lardner,  Works  iv.  91  ff.  (Lend.  1839). 


22 

guished  from  others  as  the  authoritative  source  of  instruc- 
tion concerning  the  doctrine  and  life  of  Christ. 

There  is  one  other  coincidence  between  the  language 
which  Justin  uses  in  describing  these  books  and  that  which 
we  find  in  the  generation  following.  The  four  Gospels  as  a 
collection  might  indifferently  be  called,  and  were  indifferently 
cited  as,  "  the  Gospels  "  or  "  the  Gospel."  We  find  this  use  of 
the  expression  "  the  Gospel "  in  Theophilus  of  Antioch, 
Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Hippolytus,  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions,  Tertullian,  and  later  writers  gen- 
erally.* Now  Justin  represents  Trypho  as  saying,  "  I  know 
that  your  precepts  in  what  is  called  the  Gospel  {h  tu  Tieyo/isvu 
evayyeXio))  are  SO  wonderful  and  great  as  to  cause  a  suspicion 
that  no  one  may  be  able  to  observe  them."  (Dial.  c.  lo.)  In 
another  place,  he  quotes,  apparently,  Matt.  xi.  27  (comp. 
Luke  X.  22)  as  being  "written  in  the  Gospel."f  No  plausi- 
ble explanation  can  be  given  of  this  language  except  that 
which  recognizes  in  it  the  same  usage  that  we  constantly 
find  in  later  Christian  writers.  The  books  which  in  one 
place  Justin  calls  "Gospels,"  books  composed  by  Apostles 
and  their  companions,  were  in  reference  to  what  gave  them 
their  distinctive  value  one.  They  were  the  record  of  the 
Gospel  of  Christ  in  different  forms.  No  one  of  our  present 
Gospels,  if  these  were  in  circulation  in  the  time  of  Justin, 
and  certainly  no  one  of  that  great  number  of  Gospels  which 

•See  Justin  or  Pseudo- Justin,  De  Res.c,  lo. —  Ignat.  or  Pseudo-Ignat.  Ad  Philad.  cc.  s, 
8;  Smyrn.  cc.  $(?),  7. —  Pseudo-Clem.  2  Ej>.  ad  Cor.  c.  8. —  Theophil.  iii.  14. —  Iren.  Hter. 
i.  7.  §4;  8.  §4;  20.  §2;  27.  §2.  ii.  22.  §5;  26.  §2.  iii.  5.  §1;  9.  §2;  10.  §§2,  6;  11.  §§8 
(rrrpd/iop^w  to  Evayyi?uov) ,  9  \  >6-  §  5-  iv.  20.  §§6,  9 ;  32.  §  i ;  34.  §  i. —  Clem.  AI.  Ptsd.  i.  c. 
5,  pp.  104,  105,  its  ed.  Potter;  c.  9,  pp.  143,  145  its,  148.  ii.  i,  p.  169;  c.  10,  p.  235;  c.  12,  p. 
246.  Strotn.  ii.  16,  p.  467.  iii.  6,  p.  537;  c.  11,  p.  544.  iv.  i,  p.  564;  c.  4,  p.  570.  v.  5,  p.  664. 
vL6,p.764;  c.  ii,p.7S4^>;  c.  14,  p.  797.  vii.3,p.836.  Eel. />ro/>h.  cc.  $0,  c^j. —  Origen,  C<>«/. 
Celt.  I.  51.  ii.  13,  24.  27.  34,  36,  37.  6',  63  (Opp.  I.  367,  39S,  409,  411,  415,  416  its,  433,  434  ed. 
Delarue).  In  Joan.  tom.  i.  §§4,  5.  v.  §4.  (Opp.  IV.  4,  98.)  Pseudo-Orig.  Dial,  de  recta 
in  Drum  fide,  sect,  i  (Opp.  I.  807). —  Hippol.  No'H.  c.  6.— Const.  Ap.  i.  i,  2  iis,  5,  6.  ii.  i  iis, 
5  iis,  6  iis,  8,  13,  16,  17,  35,39.  iii.  7.  v.  14.  vi.  23  iis,  28.  vii.  24.  — TertuU.  Cast.  c.  4.  Pudic.  c. 
2.  Adv.  Marc.  iv.  7.  Herntog.  c.  20.  Resurr.  c.  27.  Prax.  cc.  20,21. —  Plural,  Muratorian 
Canon(a]sothesing.).— Theophilus,  .,4^^ «/(?/.  iii.  12,  ra  -j-f^v  Trf)otj)r/TGiv  Kal  tuv  eiayye/ituv. 
—  Clem.  Al.  Strom,  iv.  6.  p.  582.  Hippol.  Re/.  Heer.  vii.  38,  p.  259,  ji^v  6e  EvayyeTi.luv  7/  Tov 
n;roOT(5Aov,  and  later  writers  everywhere. —  Plural  used  where  the  passage  quoted  is  found  in  only 
one  oi  the  Gospels,  Basilides  ap.  Hippol.  Ref,  Hter.  vii.  22,  27. —  Const.  Ap.  ii.  53. —  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  Procat.  c.  3;  Cat.  ii.  4;  x.  i ;  xvi.  16. — Theodoret,  Quasi,  in  Num.  c.  xix.  q.  35, 
Migne  Ixxx.  385;    In  Ps.  xlv.  16,  M.  Ixxx.  1197;    In  1  TJiess.  v.  15,  M.  Ixxxii.  649,  and  so  often. 

t  On  this  important  passage  see  Note  A  at  the  end  of  this  essay. 


23 

the  writer  of  Supernatural  Religion  imagines  to  have  been 
current  at  that  period,  could  have  been  so  distinguished  from 
the  rest  as  to  be  called  'j  the  Gospel." 

It  has  been  maintained  by  the  author  of  Supernatural  Re- 
ligion and  others  that  Justin's  description  of  the  Gospels  as 
"  Memoirs  composed  by  the  Apostles  and  those  who  followed 
with  them "  (to  render  the  Greek  verbally)  cannot  apply  to 
works  composed  by  two  Apostles  and  two  companions  of 
Apostles  :  '^  the  Apostles  "  must  mean  all  the  Apostles,  "  the 
collective  body  of  the  Apostles."  {S.  R.  i.  291.)  Well,  if  it 
must,  then  the  connected  expression,  "those  that  followed 
with  them"  {juv  kKeivoig  TzapaKo?x}v6riadvTuv),  whcrc  the  definite 
article  is  used  in  just  the  same  way  in  Greek,  must  mean  "all 
those  that  followed  with  them."  We  have,  then,  a  truly  mar- 
vellous book,  if  we  take  the  view  of  Supernatural  Religion 
that  the  **  Memoirs  "  of  Justin  was  a  single  work  ;  a  Gospel, 
namely,  composed  by  "  the  collective  body  of  the  Apostles  " 
and  the  collective  body  of  those  who  accompanied  them.  If 
the  "  Memoirs  "  consist  of  several  different  books  thus  com- 
posed, the  marvel  is  not  lessened.  Now  Justin  is  not  respon- 
sible for  this  absurdity.  The  simple  fact  is  that  the  definite 
article  in  Greek  in  this  case  distinguishes  the  two  classes  to 
which  the  writers  of  the  Gospels  belonged.* 

To  state  in  full  detail  and  with  precision  all  the  features  of 
the  problem  presented  by  Justin's  quotations,  and  his  refer- 
ences to  facts  in  the  life  of  Christ,  is  here,  of  course,  impos- 
sible.    But  what  is  the  obvious  aspect  of  the  case } 

It  will  not  be  disputed  that  there  is  a  very  close  cor- 
respondence between  the  history  of  Christ  sketched  by 
Justin,  embracing  numerous  details,  and  that  found  in  our 
Gospels :  the  few  statements  not  authorized  by  them,  such 
as  that  Christ  was  born  in  a  cave,  that  the  Magi  came  from 
Arabia,  that  Christ  as  a  carpenter  made  ploughs  and  yokes, 

*  For  illustrations  of  this  use  of  the  article,  see  Norton's  Evidences  of  the  Genuineness  of 
the  Gospels,  ist  ed.  (1837),  vol.  i.  p.  190,  note.  Comp.  i  Thess.  ii.  14  and  Jude  17,  where  it  would 
be  idle  to  suppose  that  the  writer  means  that  all  the  Apostles  had  given  the  particular  warning 
referred  to.  See  also  Origen,  Cont.  CeU.  i.  5 '»  P- 367. //era  rtjv  avayeyfiafifdvirv  kv  rote 
evayyeXioic  VTTo  Tuv'ljjaw)  ficSriruv  laropiav;  and  ii.  13,  7rapaT?.^CTto  roZf  vnb  Tov 
/M^^uv  Tov  'iTfOov  ypa(*>elaiv.    See,  further,  Note  B  at  the  end  of  thb  essay. 


24 

present  little  or  no  objection  to  the  supposition  that  they 
were  his  main  authority.  These  details  may  be  easily  ex- 
plained as  founded  on  oral  traditiojfi,  or  as  examples  of  that 
substitution  of  inferences  from  facts  for  the  facts  themselves, 
which  we  find  in  so  many  ancient  and  modern  writers,  and 
observe  in  every-day  life.*  Again,  there  is  a  substantial  cor- 
respondence between  the  teaching  of  Christ  as  reported  by 
Justin  and  that  found  in  the  Gospels.  Only  one  or  two 
sayings  are  ascribed  to  Christ  by  Justin  which  are  not  con- 
tained in  the  Gospels,  and  these  may  naturally  be  referred, 
like  others  which  we  find  in  writers  who  received  our  four 
Gospels  as  alone  authoritative,  to  oral  tradition,  or  may  have 
been  taken  from  some  writing  or  writings  now  lost  which 
contained  such  traditions. f  That  Justin  actually  used  all 
our  present  Gospels  is  admitted  by  Hilgenfeld  and  Keim. 
But  that  they  were  not  his  main  authority  is  argued  chiefly 
from  the  want  of  exact  verbal  correspondence  between  his 
citations  of  the  words  of  Christ  and  the  language  of  our 
Gospels,  where  the  meaning  is  essentially  the  same.  The 
untenableness  of  this  argument  has  been  demonstrated,  I 
conceive,  by  Norton,  Semisch,  Westcott,  and  Sanday,  versus 
Hilgenfeld  and  Supernatural  Religion.  Its  weakness  is  illus- 
trated in  a  Note  at  the  end  of  this  essay,  and  will  be  further 
illustrated  presently  by  the  full  discussion  of  a  passage  of 
special  interest  and  importance.     Justin  nowhere  expressly 

•Several  of  Justin's  additions  in  the  way  of  detail  seem  to  have  proceeded  from  his  assump- 
tion of  the  fulfilment  of  Old  Testament  prophecies,  or  what  he  regarded  as  such.  See  Semisch, 
Die  apost.  Denkuiiirdigkeiten  des  MiXrtyrers  Justinus  (1S48),  p.  377  ff . ;  Volkmar,  Der 
Ursprung  utiserer  Evangelien  (1866),  p.  124  f. ;  Westcott,  Canatt  of  the  N.  T.,  p.  162,  4th  ed. 
(1875),  and  Dr.  E.  A.  Abbott,  art.  Gospels  in  the  ninth  ed.  of  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica  (p.  817), 
who  remarks:  "  Justin  never  quotes  any  rival  Gospel,  nor  alleges  any  words  or  facts  which  make 
it  probable  he  used  a  rival  Gospel ;  such  non-canonical  sayings  and  facts  as  Tie  mentions  are 
readily  explicable  as  the  results  of  lapse  of  memory,  general  looseness  and  inaccuracy,  extending 
to  the  use  of  the  Old  as  well  as  the  New  Testament,  and  the  desire  to  adapt  the  facts  o£  the  New 
Scriptures  to  the  prophecies  of  the  Old."    (p.  818). 

t  See  Westcott,  "On  the  Apocryphal  Traditions  of  the  Lord's  Words  and  Works,"  appended 
to  his  Introd.io  the  Study  0/  the  Gospels,  5th  ed.  (1875),  pp.  453-461,  and  the  little  volume  of 
J.  T.  Dodd,  Sayings  ascribed  to  our  Lord  by  the  Fathers,  eXC,  Oxford,  1874.  Compare  Norton, 
Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  2d  ed. ,  i.  220  ff.  The  stress  which  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion 
lays  on  the  word  TzdvTa  in  the  passage  (Apol.  i.  33)  where  Justin  speaks  of  "those  who  have 
written  memoirs  of  all  things  concerning  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ"  shows  an  extraordinary 
disregard  of  the  common  use  of  such  expressions.  It  is  enough  to  compare,  as  Westcott  does, 
Acts  i.  I.  For  illustrations  from  Justin  {Apol.  ii.  6;  i.  43 ;  Dial.  cc.  44,  121)  see  Semisch,  Di« 
apost.  Denkwiirdigkeiten  u.  s.  w.,  p.  404  f. 


25 

quotes  the  "  Memoirs "  for  anything  which  is  not  substan- 
tially found  in  our  Gospels ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  his 
deviations  from  exact  correspondence  with  them,  as  regards 
matters  of  fact,  or  the  report  of  the  words  of  Christ,  which 
may  not  be  abundantly  paralleled  in  the  writings  of  the 
Christian  Fathers  who  used  our  four  Gospels  as  alone 
authoritative. 

With  this  view  of  the  state  of  the  case,  and  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  books  used  and  described  by  Justin  though 
without  naming  their  authors,  let  us  now  consider  the 
bearing  of  the  indisputable  fact  (with  which  the  author  of 
Supernatural  Religion  thinks  he  has  no  concern)  of  the  gen- 
eral reception  of  our  four  Gospels  as  genuine  in  the  last 
quarter  of  the  second  century.  As  I  cannot  state  the  argu- 
ment more  clearly  or  more  forcibly  than  it  has  been  done  by 
Mr.  Norton,  I  borrow  his  language.     Mr.  Norton  says  :  — 

The  manner  in  which  Justin  speaks  of  the  character  and  authority 
of  the  books  to  which  he  appeals,  of  their  reception  among  Christians, 
and  of  the  use  which  was  made  of  them,  proves  these  books  to  have 
been  the  Gospels.  They  carried  with  them  the  authority  of  the  Apostles. 
They  were  those  writings  from  which  he  and  other  Christians  derived 
their  knowledge  of  the  history  and  doctrines  of  Christ.  They  were  relied 
upon  by  him  as  primary  and  decisive  evidence  in  his  explanations  of  the 
character  of  Christianity.  They  were  regarded  as  sacred  books.  They 
were  read  in  the  assemblies  of  Christians  on  the  Lord's  day,  in  connection 
with  the  Prophets  of  the  Old  Testament.  Let  us  now  consider  the 
manner  in  which  the  Gospels  were  regarded  by  the  contemporaries  of 
Justin.  Irenasus  was  in  the  vigor  of  life  before  Justin's  death ;  and  the 
same  was  true  of  very  many  thousands  of  Christians  living  when  Irenasus 
wrote.  But  he  tells  us  that  the  four  Gospels  are  the  four  pillars  of  the 
Church,  the  foundation  of  Christian  faith,  written  by  those  who  had  first 
orally  preached  the  Gospel,  by  two  Apostles  and  two  companions  of 
Apostles.  It  is  incredible  that  Irenaeus  and  Justin  should  have  spoken 
of  different  books.  We  cannot  suppose  that  writings,  such  as  the 
Memoirs  of  which  Justin  speaks,  believed  to  be  the  works  of  Apostles 
and  companions  of  Apostles,  read  in  Christian  Churches,  and  received 
as  sacred  books,  of  the  highest  authority,  should,  immediately  after  he 
wrote,  have  fallen  into  neglect  and  oblivion,  and  been  superseded  by 
another  set  of  books.  The  strong  sentiment  of  their  value  could  not  so 
silently,  and  so  unaccountably,  have  changed  into  entire  disregard,  and 
have  been  transferred  to  other  writings.  The  copies  of  them  spread 
over  the  world  could  not  so  suddenly  and  mysteriously  have  disappeared. 


26 

that  no  subsequent  trace  of  their  existence  should  be  clearly  discoverable. 
When,  therefore,  we  find  Irenaeus,  the  contemporary  of  Justin,  ascribing 
to  the  four  Gospels  the  same  character,  the  same  authority,  and  the  same 
authors,  as  are  ascribed  by  Justin  to  the  Memoirs  quoted  by  him,  which 
were  called  Gospels,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  Memoirs 
of  Justin  were  the  Gospels  of  Irenasus.  * 

It  may  be  objected  to  Mr.  Norton's  argument,  that  "many- 
writings  which  have  been  excluded  from  the  canon  were 
publicly  read  in  the  churches,  until  very  long  after  Justin's 
day."  {S.R.  i.  294.)  The  author  of  Super7iaUiral  Religion 
mentions  particularly  the  Epistle  of  the  Roman  Clement  to 
the  Corinthians,  the  Epistle  of  Soter,  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
to  the  Corinthians,  the  "  Pastor  "  or  "  Shepherd  "  of  Hermas, 
and  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter,  To  these  may  be  added  the 
Epistle  ascribed  to  Barnabas. 

To  give  the  objection  any  force,  the  argument  must  run 
thus:  The  writings  above  named  were  at  one  time  gener- 
ally regarded  by  Christians  as  sacred  books,  of  the  highest 
authority  and  importance,  and  placed  at  least  on  a  level  with 
the  writings  of  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament.  They 
were  afterwards  excluded  from  the  canon :  therefore  a  similar 
change  might  take  place  among  Christians  in  their  estimate 
of  the  writings  which  Justin  has  described  under  the  name 
of  "  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles."  In  the  course  of  thirty 
years,  a  different  set  of  books  might  silently  supersede  them 
in  the  whole  Christian  world. 

The  premises  are  false.  There  is  no  proof  that  any  one 
of  these  writings  was  ever  regarded  as  possessing  the  same 
authority  and  value  as  Justin's  "  Memoirs,"  or  anything  like 
it.  From  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  books  received  as  au- 
thentic records  of  the  life  and  teaching  of  Christ  must  have 
had  an  importance  which  could  belong  to  no  others.  On 
the  character  of  the  teaching  and  the  facts  of  the  life  of 
Christ  as  recorded  in  the  "  Memoirs,"  Justin's  whole  argu- 
ment rests.  Whether  he  regarded  the  Apostolic  writings 
as  "inspired"  or  not,  he  unquestionably  regarded  Christ  as 
inspired,  or  rather  as  the  divine,  inspiring  Logos  {Apol.  i. 

•  EvieUnets  of  th*  Gfttuinenisi  of  th*  Gospels,  ad  ed.,  vol.  i.  pp.  a37-a39. 


27 

33,  3^5  ^^-  lo)  5  ^^^  his  teaching  as  "the  new  law,"  universal, 
everlasting,  which  superseded  "the  old  covenant."  (See 
Dial.  cc.  II,  12,  etc.)  The  books  that  contained  this  were  to 
the  Christians  of  Justin's  time  the  very  foundation  of  their 
faith. 

As  to  the  works  mentioned  by  Supernatural  Religion,  not 
only  is  there  no  evidence  that  any  one  of  them  ever  held  a 
place  in  the  Christian  Church  to  be  compared  for  a  moment 
with  that  of  the  Gospels,  but  there  is  abundant  evidence  to 
the  contrary.  They  were  read  in  some  churches  for  a  time 
as  edifying  books, —  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  "in 
very  many  churches "  according  to  Eusebius  {Hist.  Eccl. 
iii.  1 6), —  and  a  part  of  them  were  regarded  by  a  few  Chris- 
tian writers  as  having  apostolic  or  semi-apostolic  authority, 
or  as  divinely  inspired.  One  of  the  most  definite  statements 
about  them  is  that  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth  {cir.  a.d.  175-180), 
who,  in  a  letter  to  the  church  at  Rome  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl. 
iv.  23),  tells  us  that  the  Epistle  of  Soter  (d.  176?)  to  the 
Christians  at  Corinth  was  read  in  their  church  for  edification 
or  "admonition"  {voveereiadai  is  the  word  used)  on  a  certain 
Sunday,  and  would  continue  to  be  so  read  from  time  to  time, 
as  the  Epistle  of  Clement  had  been.  This  shows  how  far  the 
occasional  public  reading  of  such  a  writing  in  the  church 
was  from  implying  its  canonical  authority.  —  Clement  of 
Alexandria  repeatedly  quotes  the  Epistle  ascribed  to  Barna- 
bas as  the  work  of  "  Barnabas  the  Apostle,"  but  criticises 
and  condemns  one  of  his  interpretations  {Strom,  ii.  15, 
p.  464),  and  in  another  place,  as  Mr.  Norton  remarks,  rejects 
a  fiction  found  in  the  work  {Peed.  ii.  10,  p.  220,  ff.). —  "The 
Shepherd"  of  Hermas  in  its  form  claims  to  be  a  divine 
vision ;  its  allegorical  character  suited  the  taste  of  many ; 
and  the  Muratorian  Canon  {cir.  a.d.  170)  says  that  it  ought 
to  be  read  in  the  churches,  but  not  as  belonging  to  the  writ- 
ings of  the  prophets  or  apostles.  (See  Credner,  Gesch.  d. 
neutest.  Kanon,  p.  165.)  This  was  the  general  view  of  those 
who  did  not  reject  it  as  altogether  apocryphal.  It  appears  in 
the  Sinaitic  MS.  as  an  appendix  to  the  New  Testament. — The 
Apocalypse   of   Peter  appears  to   have  imposed  upon  some 


28 

as  the  work  of  the  Apostle.  The  Muratorian  Canon  says, 
"  Some  among  us  are  unwilling  that  it  should  be  read  in  the 
church."  It  seems  to  have  been  received  as  genuine  by 
Clement  of  Alexandria  {Eel.  proph.  cc.  41,  48,  49)  and  Meth- 
odius {Conv.  ii.  6).  Besides  these,  the  principal  writers  who 
speak  of  it  are  Eusebius  {Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  3.  §2;  25.  §4;  vi. 
14.  §  i),  who  rejects  it  as  uncanonical  or  spurious,  Jerome 
{De  Vir.  ill.  c.  i),  who  puts  it  among  apocryphal  writings, 
and  Sozomen  {Hist.  Eccl.  vii,  19),  who  mentions  that,  though 
rejected  by  the  ancients  as  spurious,  it  was  read  once  a  year 
in  some  churches  of  Palestine.* 

It  appears  sufficiently  from  what  has  been  said  that  there 
is  nothing  in  the  limited  ecclesiastical  use  of  these  books,  or 
in  the  over-estimate  of  their  authority  and  value  by  some 
individuals,  to  detract  from  the  force  of  Mr.  Norton's  argu- 
ment. Supernatural  Religion  here  confounds  things  that 
differ  very  widely.f 

At  this  stage  of  the  argument,  we  are  entitled,  I  think,  to 
come  to  the  examination  of  the  apparent  use  of  the  Gospel 
of  John  by  Justin  Martyr  with  a  strong  presumption  in  favor 
of  the  view  that  this  apparent  use  is  real.  In  other  words, 
there  is  a  very  strong  presumption  that  the  "  Memoirs  "  used 
by  Justin  and  called  by  him  *'  Gospels  "  and  collectively  "the 
Gospel,"  and  described  as  "  composed  by  Apostles  of  Christ 
and  their  companions,"  were  actually  our  present  Gospels, 
composed  by  two  Apostles  and  two  companions  of  Apostles. 
This  presumption  is,  I  believe,  greatly  strengthened  by  the 
evidence  of  the  use  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  by  writers  between 
the  time  of  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus,  and  also  by  the 
evidences  of  its  use  before  the  time  of  Justin  by  the  Gnostic 
sects.  But,  leaving  those  topics  for  the  present,  we  will  con- 
sider the  direct  evidence  of  its  use  by  Justin. 

The  first  passage  noticed  will  be  examined  pretty  thor- 
oughly :  both  because  the  discussion  of  it  will  serve  to  illus- 
trate the  false  reasoning  of  the  author  of  Supernatural  Relig- 

•  See,  on  this  book,  Hilgenfeld,  Nov.  Test,  extra,  canonem  receptum  (1866),  iv.  74,  ff. 
t  On  this  whole  subject,  see  Semisch,  Die  apostol,  Denkw\irdigk«iten  des  MUrt.  yusiinus, 
p.  61,  £F. 


29 

ion  and  other  writers  respecting  the  quotations  of  Justin 
Martyr  which  agree  in  substance  with  passages  in  our 
Gospels  while  differing  in  the  form  of  expression ;  and 
because  it  is  of  special  importance  in  its  bearing  on  the 
question  whether  Justin  made  use  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and 
seems  to  me,  when  carefully  examined,  to  be  in  itself  almost 
decisive. 

The  passage  is  that  in  which  Justin  gives  an  account  of 
Christian  baptism,  in  the  sixty-first  chapter  of  his  First 
Apology.  Those  who  are  ready  to  make  a  Christian  pro- 
fession, he  says,  "are  brought  by  us  to  a  place  where  there 
is  water,  and  in  the  manner  of  being  bom  again  \or  regen- 
erated] in  which  we  ourselves  also  were  born  again,  they  are 
born  again ;  for  in  the  name  of  the  Father  of  the  universe 
and  sovereign  God,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  then  receive  the  bath  in  the  water. 
For  Christ  also  said.  Except  ye  be  born  again,  ye  shall  in 
no  wise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ('Av  fifi  avayewvdTjTe, 

qv  jif]  elakWriTe  Eig  TTjv  fiaxjikeiav  TCiv  ohpavuv) .       But    that   it  is  impossible 

for  those  who  have  once  been  born  to  enter  into  the  wombs 
of  those  who  brought  them  forth  is  manifest  to  all." 

The  passage  in  the  Gospel  of  John  of  which  this  reminds 
us  is  found  in  chap.  iii.  3-5  :  "  Jesus  answered  and  said  to  him 
[Nicodemus],  Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  thee.  Except  a  man 
be  born  anew,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God  ('Edv  //^  n? 

yewTfif)  avudev,  ov  di'VOTai  ideiv  rffv  PaaiMav  tov  Oeov).       NicodcmUS     Saith 

to  him.  How  can  a  man  be  born  when  he  is  old  .-*  Can  he 
enter  a  second  time  into  his  mother's  womb  and  be  born.? 
Jesus  answered.  Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  thee,  Except  a  man 
be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 

Kingdom    01     God        ('Edv  fii/  ng  yewrfiy  ef  vda'og  koX  irvevfiarog,  ov  Sivarai 

ela£?jdeiv  elg  rfp^  iiaai>xiav  tov  deov).  Compare  verse  /,  "  Marvel  not 
that  I  said  unto  thee,  Ye  must  be  born  anew  "  {M  i/iac  yewtfifjvac 
avudev)-^  and  Matt,  xviii.  3,  "Verily  I  say  unto  you.  Except  ye 
be  changed,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  in  no  wise 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven"  (oh  fi^  eiceWTrre  ek  ryv  (SaaiMav 

Tuv  ovpavijv). 

I  have  rendered  the  Greek  as  literally  as  possible ;  but  it 


30 

should  be  observed  that  the  word  translated  "  anew,"  avuBev, 
might  also  be  rendered  "from  above."  This  point  will  be 
considered  hereafter. 

Notwithstanding  the  want  of  verbal  correspondence,  I 
believe  that  we  have  here  in  Justin  a  free  quotation  from 
the  Gospel  of  John,  modified  a  little  by  a  reminiscence  of 
Matt,  xviii.  3. 

The  first  thing  that  strikes  us  in  Justin's  quotation  is  the 
fact  that  the  remark  with  which  it  concludes,  introduced  by 
Justin  as  if  it  were  a  grave  observation  of  his  own,  is  simply 
silly  in  the  connection  in  which  it  stands.  In  John,  on  the 
other  hand,  where  it  is  not  to  be  understood  as  a  serious 
question,  it  admits,  as  we  shall  see,  of  a  natural  explanation 
as  the  language  of  Nicodemus.  This  shows,  as  everything 
else  shows,  the  weakness  (to  use  no  stronger  term)  of  Volk- 
mar's  hypothesis,  that  John  has  here  borrowed  from  Justin, 
not  Justin  from  John.  The  observation  affords  also,  by  its 
very  remarkable  peculiarity,  strong  evidence  that  Justin 
derived  it,  together  with  the  declaration  which  accompanies 
it,  from  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

It  will  be  well,  before  proceeding  to  our  immediate  task, 
to  consider  the  meaning  of  the  passage  in  John,  and  what 
the  real  difficulty  of  Nicodemus  was.  He  could  not  have 
been  perplexed  by  the  figurative  use  of  the  expression  "  to 
be  born  anew":  that  phraseology  was  familiar  to  the  Jews 
to  denote  the  change  which  took  place  in  a  Gentile  when  he 
became  a  proselyte  to  Judaism.*  But  the  unqualified  lan- 
guage of  our  Saviour,  expressing  a  universal  necessity, 
implied  that  even  the  Jewish  Pharisee,  with  all  his  pride  of 
sanctity  and  superior  knowledge,  must  experience  a  radical 
change,  like  that  which  a  Gentile  proselyte  to  Judaism  under- 
went, before  he  could  enjoy  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's 
kingdom.  This  was  what  amazed  Nicodemus.  Pretending 
therefore  to  take  the  words  in  their  literal  meaning,  he  asks, 
"  How  can  a  man  be  born  when  he  is  old  >  Can  he  enter," 
etc.     He  imposes  an  absurd  and   ridiculous  sense   on   the 

•  See  Lightfoot  and  WeUtein,  or  T.  Robinson  or  WUnsche,  on  John  iii.  3  or  5. 


31 

words,  to  lead  Jesus  to  explain  himself  further.*  Thus 
viewed,  the  question  is  to  some  purpose  in  John;  while 
the  language  in  Justin,  as  a  serious  proposition,  is  idle,  and 
betrays  its  non-originality. 

The  great  difference  in  the  form  of  expression  between 
Justin's  citation  and  the  Gospel  of  John  is  urged  as  decisive 
against  the  supposition  that  he  has  here  used  this  Gospel. 
It  is  observed  further  that  all  the  devdations  of  Justin  from 
the  language  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  are  also  found  in  a 
quotation  of  the  words  of  Christ  in  the  Clementine  Homilies ; 
and  hence  it  has  been  argued  that  Justin  and  the  writer  of 
the  Clementines  quoted  from  the  same  apocryphal  Gospel, 
perhaps  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  or  the  Gospel 
according  to  Peter,  In  the  Clementine  Homilies  (xi.  26), 
the  quotation  runs  as  follows :  "  For  thus  the  prophet 
swore  unto  us,  saying.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  be 
born  again  by  living  water  into  the  name  of  Father,  Son, 
Holy  Spirit,  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  But  it  will  be  seen  at  once  that  the  author  of  the 
Clementines  differs  as  widely  from  Justin  as  Justin  from  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  and  that  there  is  no  plausibility  in  the  suppo- 
sition that  he  and  Justin  quoted  from  the  same  apocryphal 
book.  The  quotation  in  the  Clementines  is  probably  only 
a  free  combination  of  the  language  in  John  iii.  3-5  with 
Matt,  xxviii.  19,  modified  somewhat  in  form  by  the  influence 
of  Matt,  xviii.  3.f  Such  combinations  of  different  passages, 
and  such  quotations  of  the  words  of  Christ  according  to  the 
sense  rather  than  the  letter,  are  not  uncommon  in  the 
Fathers.     Or,  the  Clementines  may  have  used  Justin. 

I  now  propose  to  show  in  detail  that  the  differences  in  form 
between  Justin's  quotation  and  the  phraseology  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  marked  as  they  are,  all  admit  of  an  easy  and  natural 
explanation  on  the  supposition  that  he  really  borrowed  from 
it,  and  that  they  are  paralleled  by  similar  variations  in  the 

♦See  Norton,  A  New  Trans,  of  the  Gospels,  with  Notes,  vol.  ii.  p.  507. 

t  On  the  quotations  from  the  Gospel  of  John  as  well  as  from  the  other  Gospels  in  the 
Clementine  Homilies,  see  Sanday,  The  Gospels  in  the  Second  Century,  pp.  2S8-295 ;  comp. 
pp.  161-187.     See  also  Westcott,  Canon  0/  the  N.  T.,  pp.  2S2-288 ;  and  comp.  pp.  150-156. 


32 

quotations  of  the  same  passage  by  Christian  writers  who 
used  our  four  Gospels  as  their  exclusive  authority.  If  this 
is  made  clear,  the  fallacy  of  the  assumption  on  which  the 
author  of  Supernatural  Religion  reasons  in  his  remarks  on 
this  passage,  and  throughout  his  discussion  of  Justin's  quota- 
tions, will  be  apparent.  He  has  argued  on  an  assumption  of 
verbal  accuracy  in  the  quotations  of  the  Christian  Fathers 
which  is  baseless,  and  which  there  were  peculiar  reasons  for 
not  expecting  from  Justin  in  such  works  as  his  Apologies.* 
Let  us  take  up  the  differences  point  by  point :  — 
I.  The  solemn  introduction,  "Verily,  verily  I  say  unto 
thee,"  is  omitted.  But  this  would  be  very  naturally  omitted : 
(i)  because  it  is  of  no  importance  for  the  sense ;  and  (2) 
because  the  Hebrew  words  used,  'Ap)v  d//?)v,  would  be  unintel- 
ligible to  the  Roman  Emperor,  without  a  particular  explana- 
tion (compare  Apol.  i.  65).  (3)  It  is  usually  omitted  by 
Christian  writers  in  quoting  the  passage :  so,  for  example,  by 
the  DocETiST  in  Hippolytus  {Ref.  Hcer.  viii.  10,  p.  267),  Ire- 
NiEUS  (Frag.  35,  ed.  Stieren,  33  Harvey),  Origen,  in  a  Latin 
version  {In  Ex.  Horn.  v.  i,  Opp.  ii.  144,  ed,  Delarue  ;  In  Ep.  ad 
Rom.  lib.  V.  c.  8,  Opp.  iv.  560),  the  Apostolical  Constitu- 
tions (vi.  15),  EusEBius  twice  (/«  Isa.  i.  16,  17,  and  iii.  i,  2; 
Migne  xxiv.  96,  109),  Athanasius  {De  Incarn.  c.  14,  Opp. 
i.  59,  ed.  Montf.),  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  twice  {Cat.  iii.  4; 
xvii.  1 1),  Basil  the  Great  {Adv.  Eunom.  lib.  v.  Opp.  i.  308 
(437),  ed.  Benedict),  Pseudo-Basil  three  times  {De  Bapt. 
i.  2.  §§  2,  6;  ii.  I.  §  I  ;  Opp.  ii.  630  (896),  633  (899),  653 
(925)  ),  Gregory  Nysscn  {De  Christi  Bapt.  Opp.  iii.  369), 
Ephraem  Syrus  {De  Pcenit.  Opp.  iii.  183),  Macarius  ^Egyp- 

•On  the  whole  subject  of  Justin  Martyr's  quotations,  I  would  refer  to  the  admirably  clear, 
forcible,  and  accurate  statement  of  the  case  in  Norton's  Evidences  of  the  Genuineness  of  the 
Gospels,  2d  ed.,  vol.  i.  pp.  200-239,  *"d  Addit.  Note  E,  pp.  ccxiv.-ccxxxviii.  His  account  is 
less  detailed  than  that  of  Semisch,  Hilgenfeld,  and  5'«/sr«a^«ra//?ff//]ft£»«,  but  is  thoroughly 
trustworthy.  On  one  point  there  may  be  a  doubt:  Mr.  Norton  says  that  "  Justin  twice  gives  the 
words,  Thou  art  my  son ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee,  as  those  uttered  at  our  Saviour's 
baptism;  and  in  one  place  says  expressly  that  the  words  were  found  in  the  Memoirs  by  the 
Apostles."  This  last  statement  seems  to  me  incorrect.  The  quotations  referred  to  will  be  found 
in  Dial.  c.  Tryph.  cc.  88,  103 ;  but  in  neither  case  does  Justin  say,  according  to  the  grammatical 
construction  of  his  language,  that  the  words  in  question  were  found  in  the  Memoirs,  though  it  is 
probable  that  they  were.  The  discussion  of  Justin's  quotations  by  Professor  Westcott  and  Dr. 
Sanday  in  the  works  referred  to  in  the  preceding  note  is  also  valuable,  especially  in  reference  to 
the  early  variations  in  the  text  of  the  Gospels. 


33 

Tius  {Horn.  xxx.  3),  Chrysostom  {De  consubst.  vii.  3,  Opp. 
i.  505  (618),  ed.  Montf.  ;  In  Gen.  Serm.  vii.  5,  Opp.  iv.  681 
(789),  and  elsewhere  repeatedly),  Theodoret  {Qucest.  in 
Ntcm.  35,  Migne  Ixxx.  385),  Basil  of  Seleucia  {Orat. 
xxviii.  3,  Migne  Ixxxv.  321),  and  a  host  of  other  writers,  both 
Greek  and  Latin, —  I  could  name  forty,  if  necessary. 

2.  The  change  of  the  indefinite  r/f,  in  the  singular,  to  the 
second  person  plural:  "Except  a  man  be  born  anew"  to 
"Except  ye  be  born  anew."  This  also  is  unimportant. 
This  is  shown,  and  the  origin  of  the  change  is  partially 
explained  (i)  by  the  fact,  not  usually  noticed,  that  it  is  made 
by  the  speaker  himself  in  the  Gospel,  in  professedly  repeating 
in  the  seventh  verse  the  words  used  in  the  third ;  the  indefi- 
nite singular  involving,  and  being  equivalent  to,  the  plural. 
Verse  7  reads :  **  Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto  thee.  Ye  must 
be  born  anew."  (2)  The  second  person  plural  would  also 
be  suggested  by  the  similar  passage  in  Matt,  xviii.  3,  "  Except 
ye  be  changed  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  in  no 
wise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Nothing  was  more 
natural  than  that  in  a  quotation  from  memory  the  language 
of  these  two  kindred  passages  should  be  somewhat  mixed ; 
and  such  a  confusion  of  similar  passages  is  frequent  in  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers.  This  affords  an  easy  explanation 
also  of  Justin's  substituting,  in  agreement  with  Matthew, 
"  shall  in  no  wise  enter"  for  "cannot  enter,"  and  "kingdom 
of  heaven"  for  "kingdom  of  God."  The  two  passages  of 
John  and  Matthew  are  actually  mixed  together  in  a  some- 
what similar  way  in  a  free  quotation  by  Clement  of  Alex- 
ANDRL\,  a  writer  who  unquestionably  used  our  Gospels  alone 
as  authoritative, — "the  four  Gospels,  which,"  as  he  says, 
*^ have  been  handed  down  to  us"  {Strom,  iii.  13,  p.  553).* 
(3)  This  declaration  of  Christ  would  often  be  quoted  in  the 
early  Christian  preaching,  in  reference  to  the  importance  of 
baptism  ;  and  the  second  person  plural  would  thus  be  natu- 

•  Clement  {,Cohori.  ad  Gerties,  c.  9,  p.  69)  blends  Matt,  xviii.  3  and  John  iii.  3  as  follows: 
"  Except  ye  again  become  as  little  children,  and  be  born  again  (avayein>r;6f/re).  as  the  Scripture 
saith,  ye  will  in  no  wise  receive  him  who  is  truly  your  Father,  and  will  in  no  wise  ever  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven." 


34 

rally  substituted  for  the  indefinite  singular,  to  give  greater 
directness  to  the  exhortation.  So  in  the  Clementine  Homi- 
lies (xi.  26),  and  in  both  forms  of  the  Clementine  Epitome 
(c.  18,  pp.  16,  134,  ed.  Dressel,  Lips.  1859).  (4)  That  this 
change  of  number  and  person  does  not  imply  the  use  of  an 
apocryphal  Gospel  is  further  shown  by  the  fact  that  it  is 
made  twice  in  quoting  the  passage  by  Jeremy  Taylor,  who 
in  a  third  quotation  also  substitutes  the  plural  for  the  singu- 
lar in  a  somewhat  different  way.*     (See  below,  p.  40.) 

3.    The    change    of   euv   id']   ng   -/swridy    avuOev,  VCrse    3    (or  yewT^dfi 

merely,  verse  5),  "  Except  a  man  be  born  anew,"  or  "  over 
again,"  into  av  //?)  ava-yevvT/-d?/T£^  "  Exccpt  ye  be  born  again,"  or 
"regenerated";  in  other  words,  the  substitution  of  avayevvaa'&ai 
for  yi-vvaa-&ai  avui^Ev,  or  for  the  simple  verb  in  verse  5,  presents 
no  real  difficulty,  though  much  has  been  made  of  it.  (i)  It 
is  said  that  yewac-dat  av(,)-&ev  cannot  mean  "to  be  born  anew," 
but  must  mean  "  to  be  born  from  above"  But  we  have  the 
clearest  philological  evidence  that  avu-Bev  has  the  meaning  of 
"anew,"  "over  again,"  as  well  as  "from  above."  In  the 
only  passage  in  a  classical  author  where  the  precise  phrase, 
yevvao-daL  avu^ev,  has  been  pointed  out,  namely,  Artemidorus  on 
Dreams,  i.  13,  ed.  Reiff  (al.  14),  it  cannot  possibly  have  any 
other  meaning.  Meyer,  who  rejects  this  sense,  has  fallen 
into  a  strange  mistake  about  the  passage  in  Artemidorus, 
showing  that  he  cannot  have  looked  at  it.  Meaning  "from 
above"  or  "from  the  top"  (Matt,  xxvii.  51),  then  "from  the 
beginning  "  (Luke  i.  3),  avu-dev  is  used,  with  -dA<v  to  strengthen 

•  Professor  James  Drummoud  well  remarks :  "  How  easily  such  a  change  might  be  made,  when 
verbal  accuracy  was  not  studied,  is  instructively  shewn  in  Theophylact's  paraphrase  [I  translate 
the  Greek  ];  '  But  I  say  unto  thee,  that  both  thou  and  every  other  man  whatsoever,  unless  having 
been  born  from  above  [or  anew]  and  of  God,  ye  receive  the  true  faith  [///.  the  worthy  opinion] 
concerning  me,  are  outside  of  the  kingdom.'"  Chrysostom  (also  cited  by  Prof.  Drummond) 
observes  that  Christ's  words  are  equivalent  to  lav  ah  /ifj  yevvTj^y  k.t.'L,  "  Except  ihoit  be 
born,"  etc.,  but  are  put  in  the  indefinite  form  in  order  to  make  the  discourse  less  offensive.  I 
gladly  take  this  opportunity  to  call  attention  to  the  valuable  article  by  Prof.  Drummond  in  the 
Theological  Revieru  for  October,  1875,  vol.  xii.  pp.  471-488,  "On  the  alleged  Quotation  from  the 
Fourth  Gospel  relating  to  the  New  Binh,  in  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  i.  c.  61."  He  has  treated 
the  question  with  the  ability,  candor,  and  cautious  accuracy  of  statement  which  distinguish  his 
writings  generally.  For  the  quotation  given  above,  see  p.  476  of  the  Review.  I  am  indebted  to 
him  for  several  valuable  suggestions ;  but,  to  prevent  misapprehension  as  to  the  extent  of  this 
indebtedness,  I  may  be  permitted  to  refer  to  my  note  on  the  subject  in  the  American  edition  of 
Smith's  Dirtionary  0/  the  Bible,  vol.  ii.  p.  1433,  published  in  1869,  six  years  before  the  appear- 
ance of  Prof.  Drummond's  article. 


it,  to  signify  "again  from  the  beginning,"  "all  over  again" 
(Gal.  iv.  9,  where  see  the  passages  from  Galen  and  Hippo- 
crates cited  by  Wetstein,  and  Wisd.  of  Sol.  xix.  6,  where  see 
Grimm's  note),  like  ■jtu/.iv  U  6tirrtfjov  or  (hvrepov  (Matt.  xxvi.  42, 
John  xxi.  16),  and  in  the  classics  -a7uv  av,iTdliv  av-&ir^T7d7.ivt^apxhr. 
Thus  it  gets  the  meaning  "  anew,"  "  over  again " ;  see  the 
passages  cited  by  McClellan  in  his  note  on  John  iii.  3.* 
(2)  'AiwiJn' was  here  understood  as  meaning  "  again  "  by  the 
translators  of  many  of  the  ancient  versions  ;  namely,  the  Old 
Latin,  "denuo,"  the  Vulgate,  Coptic,  Peshito  Syriac  {Sup. 
Rel.,  6th  edit,  is  mistaken  about  this),  -^thiopic,  Georgian 
(see  Malan's  The  Gospel  accorduig  to  St.  yo/m,  etc.).  (3)  The 
Christian  Fathers  whp  prefer  the  other  interpretation,  as 
Origen,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  Theophylact,  recognize  the 
fact  that  the  word  may  have  either  meaning.  The  ambi- 
guity is  also  noticed  by  Chrysostom.  (4)  ' Xvayewacr^ai  was  the 
common  word  in  Christian  literature  to  describe  the  change 
referred  to.  So  already  in  i  Pet.  i.  3,  23  ;  comp.  i  Pet.  ii. 
2 ;  and  see  the  context  in  Justin.  (5)  This  meaning  best 
suits  the  connection.  Verse  4  represents  it  as  so  understood 
by  Nicodemus  :  "  Can  he  enter  a  second  time','  etc.  The  fact 
that  John  has  used  the  word  hvu'&tv  in  two  other  passages  in 
a  totally  different  connection  (viz.  iii.  31,  xix.  11)  in  the 
sense  of  f  from  above  "  is  of  little  weight.  He  has  nowhere 
else  used  it  in  reference  to  the  new  birth  to  denote  that  it  is 
a  birth  from  above:  to  express  that  idea,  he  has  used  a  differ- 

*The  passages  are:  Joseph.  .(4 «^.  i.  18,  §3;  Socrates  in  Stobseus,  Flor.  cxxlv.  41,  iv.  135 
Meineke;  Harpocration,  Lex.  s.  v.  ava(^LKdaaa\iat  ;  Pseudo-Basil,  De  Bapi.  i.  2.  §  7;  Can. 
Apost.  46,  al.  47,  al.  39;  to  which  add  Origen,  In  Joan.  torn.  xx.  c.  12,  Opp.  iv.  322,  who  gives 
the  words  of  Christ  to  Peter  in  the  legend  found  in  the  Acts  of  Paul:  uv<,)'&ev  fif/'/i.) 
aTavpu&^vai  =*' ii^f't"*  crucifigi."  I  have  verified  McClellan's  references (7"A*  //.T.  tic 
vol.  I.  p.  284,  Lond.  1875),  and  given  them  in  a  form  in  which  they  may  be  more  easily  found. 

Though  many  of  the  best  commentators  take  (U'wi?cy  here  in  the  sense  of  "from  above," 
as  Bengel,  LUcke,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Clausen,  and  so  the  lexicographers  Wahl,  Bretschneider, 
Robinson,  the  rendering  "anew"  is  supported  by  Chrysostom,  Nonnus,  Euthymius,  Luther, 
Calvin,  Beza,  Grotius,  Wetstein,  Kypke,  Krebs,  Knapp  (Scripta  var.  Arg.\.  iSS,  ed.  2da), 
Kuinoel,  Credner  {Beiirtige,  i.  253),  Olshausen,  Tholuck,  Neander,  Norton,  Noyes,  Alford, 
Ewald,  Hofmann,  Luthardt,  Weiss,  Godet,  Farrar,  Watkins,  Westcott,  and  the  recent  lexico- 
graphers, Grimm  and  Creraer.  The  word  is  not  to  be  understood  as  merely  equivalent  to 
"again,"  "a  second  time,"  but  implies  an  entire  change.  Compare  the  use  of  fjf  ri/.oc  t™  tf^* 
sense  of  "completely,"  and  the  Ep.  of  Barnabas,  c.  16.  §  8  (cited  by  Bretschneider) :  "  Having; 
received  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins,  and  having  placed  our  hope  in  the  Name,  we  became  new 
men,  created  again  from  the  beginning"  ^rrd/uv  ff  apxK)' 


36 

ent  expression,  yewir^yvai  ek  ■^eov  or  ek  tov  ^eoi),  "  to  be  born  [a/" 
begotten]  of  God,"  which  occurs  once  in  the  Gospel  (i,  13) 
and  nine  times  in  the  First  Epistle,  so  that  the  presumption 
is  that,  if  he  had  wished  to  convey  that  meaning  here,  he 
would  have  used  here  also  that  unambiguous  expression. 
But  what  is  decisive  as  to  the  main  point  is  the  fact  that 

Justin's  word    avayewrr&y  is  actually  substituted   for  y£W7/-9y  avu-^ev 

in  verse  3,  or  for  the  simple  yewv^y  in  verse  5,  by  a  large 
number  of  Christian  writers  who  unquestionably  quote  from 
John ;  so,  besides  the  Clementine  Homilies  (xi.  26)  and  the 
Clementine  Epitome  in  both  forms  (c.  18),  to  which  excep- 
tion has  been  taken  with  no  sufficient  reason,  Iren^eus  (Frag. 
35,  ed.  Stieren,  i.  846),  Eusebius  {In  ha.  i.  16,  17;  Migne 
xxiv.  96),  Athanasius  {De  Incarii.  c.  14),  Basil  {Adv.  Eunom. 
lib.  v.  Opp.  i.  308  (437) ),  Ephraem  Syrus  {De  Poenit.  Opp. 
iii.  183  {avayew7i^y  avu^Ev)),  Chrysostom  {In  I  Ej>.  ad  Cor.  XV.  29, 
Opp.  X.  378  (440) ),  Cyril   of  Alexandria  {In  Joan.  iii.  5, 

i^avayevvTT&y  6c'  vdaros  k.t.?..,  SO    PuSCy's    Critical   ed.,  VOl.  1,  p.  219  ; 

Aubert  has  ysw^-^y  k^  v6.) ;  and  so,  probably,  Anastasius 
Sinaita  preserved  in  a  Latin  version  {Anagog:  Contemp.  in 
Hexaem.  lib.  iv.,  Migne  Ixxxix.  906,  regeneratus ;  contra,  col. 
870  genitus,  gi6  generatus),  and  Hesychius  of  Jerusalem 
in  a  Latin  version  {In  Levit.  xx.  9,  Migne  xciii.  1044,  regen- 
eratus;  but  col.  974,  rejtatus).  In  the  Old  Latin  version  or 
versions  and  the  Vulgate,  the  MSS.  are  divided  in  John  iii. 
3  between  naltts  and  renatus,  and  so  in  verse  4,  2d  clause, 
between  7lasc^^.n^i  rcnasci ;  but  in  verse  5  renatus  fuerit  is  the 
unquestionable  reading  of  the  Latin  versions,  presupposing, 
apparently,  avayewrr&y  in  the  Greek.  (See  Tischendorf's  8th 
critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Test,  m  loc.)  The  Latin  Fathers, 
with  the  exception  of  Tcrtullian  and  Cyprian,  who  have  both 
readings,  and  of  the  author  De  Rebaptisinate  (c.  3),  in  quoting 
the  passage,  almost  invariably  have  renatits. 

We  occasionally  find  avayrwijOnvai,  *'  to  be  born  again,"  for 
yEwrfiijvat,  "  to  be  born,"  in  the  first  clause  of  verse  4;  so 
Ephraem  Syrus  {De  Poenit.  Opp.  iii.  183),  and  Cyril  of 
Alexandria  {Glaph.  in  Exod.  lib.  iii.  Opp.  i.  a.  341). 

From  all  that  has  been  said,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  use  of 


37 

avayevvrfifiTE  here  by  Justin  is  easily  explained.  Whether  avudev 
in  John  really  means  "from  above"  or  "anew"  is  of  little 
importance  in  its  bearing  on  our  question  :  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  Justin  may  have  understood  it  in  the  latter  sense ; 
and,  even  if  he  did  not,  the  use  of  the  term  dvayewacrdat  here 
was  very  natural,  as  is  shown  by  the  way  in  which  the  pas- 
sage is  quoted  by  Irenaeus,  Eusebius,  and  many  other  writers 
cited  above. 

4.  The  next  variation,  the  change  of  *^ cannot  see  "  or  "enter 

into "    {ov  di'varai  Ideiv   OT   elae/jdelv  fJf,    Lat.   UOU    potCSt   vidcrC,    Or 

intrare  or  introire  in),  into  "sAa//  not"  or  ^^ shall  in  jio  wise 
see "  or  "enter  into  "  (m  /^^  16^,  once  i^oi,  or  ov  fi^  elaeWri  or  elae/jdi^rc 
eif,  once  oi'K  EKjEAEvaerai  eic,  Lat.  non  videbit,  or  intrabit  or  intro- 
ibit  in),  is  both  so  natural  (comp.  Matt,  xviii.  3)  and  so  trivial 
as  hardly  to  deserve  mention.  It  is  perhaps  enough  to  say 
that  I  have  noted  sixty-nine  examples  of  it  in  the  quotations 
of  this  passage  by  forty-two  different  writers  among  the 
Greek  and  Latin  Fathers.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  in  most 
of  the  quotations  of  the  passage  by  the  Fathers,  verses  3  and 
5  are  mixed  in  different  ways,  as  might  be  expected. 

5.  The  change  of  "kingdom  of  God"  into  "kingdom  of 
heaven  "  is  perfectly  natural,  as  they  are  synonymous  expres- 
sions, and  as  the  phrase  "  kingdom  of  heaven  "  is  used  in 
the  passage  of  Matthew  already  referred  to,  the  language  of 
which  was  likely  to  be  more  or  less  confounded  in  recollec- 
tion with  that  of  this  passage  in  John,  The  change  is 
actually  made  in  several  Greek  MSS.  in  the  5th  verse  of 
John,  including  the  Sinaitic,  and  is  even  received  by  Tisch- 
endorf  into  the  text,  though,  I  believe,  on  insufRcient  grounds. 
But  a  great  number  of  Christian  writers  in  quoting  from  John 
make  just  the  same  change;  so  the  Docetist  in  Hippoly- 
Tus  {Ref.  Har.  viii.  10,  p.  267),  the  Clementine  Homilies 
(xi.  26),  the  Recognitions  (i.  69;  vi.  9),  the  Clementine 
Epitome  (c.  18)  in  both  forms,  Irenaeus  (Frag.  35,  ed. 
Stieren),  Origen  in  a  Latin  version  twice  {Opp.  iii.  948 ;  iv. 
483),  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  (vi.  15),  Eusebius 
twice  {In  Isa.  i.  16,  17;  iii.  i,  2;  Migne  xxiv.  96,  109), 
Pseud- Athanasius  {Qucest.  ad  Antioch.   loi,   Opp.  ii.   291), 


38 

Ephraem  Syrus  {De  Pcenit.  Opp.  iii.  183),  Chrysostom  five 
times  {Opp.  iv.  681  (789);  viii.  143'^^  (165),  144 '^  (165),  144b 
(166)),  Theodoret  {Qucest.  in  Num.  35,  Migne  Ixxx.  385), 
Basil  of  Seleucia  {Orat.  xxviii.  3),  Anastasius  Sinaita  in 
a  Latin  version  three  times  {Migne  Ixxxix,  870,  906,  916), 
Hesychius  of  Jerusalem  in  a  Latin  version  twice  (Migne 
xciii.  974,  1044),  Theodorus  Abucara  {Qpuscc.  c.  17,  Migne 
xcvii.  1541),  Tertullian  {De  Bapt.  c.  13),  Anon.  De  Rebap- 
tismate  (c.  3),  Philastrius  {Hcer.  120  and  148,  ed.  Oehler), 
Chromatids  {In  Matt.  iii.  14,  Migne  xx.  329),  Jerome  twice 
{Ep.  69,  al.  83,  and  In  Isa.  i.  16;  Migne  xxii.  660,  xxv.  35), 
Augustine  seven  times  {Opp.  ii.  1360,  1361  ;  v.  1745;  vi. 
327 ;  vii.  528 ;  ix.  630;  x.  207,  ed.  Bened.  2da),  and  a  host  of 
other  Latin  Fathers. 

It  should  be  observed  that  many  of  the  writers  whom  I 
have  cited  combine  three  or  four  of  these  variations  from 
John.  It  may  be  well  to  give,  further,  some  additional  illus- 
trations of  the  freedom  with  which  this  passage  is  sometimes 
quoted  and  combined  with  others.  One  example  has  already 
been  given  from  Clement  of  Alexandria.  (See  No.  2.)  Ter- 
tullian {De  Bapt.  1 2)  quotes  it  thus :  "  The  Lord  says, 
Except  a  man  shall  be  born  of  water,  he  hath  not  life,'' — Nisi 
natus  ex  aqua  quis  erit,  non  habet  vitam.  Similarly  Odo 
Cluniacensis  {Mor.  in  yob.  iii.  4,  Migne  cxxxiii.  135):  "Ve- 
ritas autem  dicit,  Nisi  quis  renatus  fuerit  ex  aqua  et  Spiritu 
sancto,  non  /labet  vitam  csternam."  Anastasius  Sinaita,  as 
preserved  in  a  Latin  version  {Anagog.  Contempt,  in  Hexaem. 
lib.  v.,  Migne  Ixxxix.  916),  quotes  the  passage  as  follows: 
"dicens,  Nisi  quis  fuerit  generatus  ex  aqua  et  Spiritu  qui 
fertur  super  aquam,  r\ox\  intrabit  in  regnum  ccelorum."  The 
Apostolical  Constitutions  (vi.  15)  as  edited  by  Cotelier 
and  Ueltzen  read :  "  For  the  Lord  saith.  Except  a  man  be 
baptized  with  (/^anr/en?^  it)  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  shall  in 
no  wise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaveti."  Here,  indeed, 
Lagarde,  with  two  MSS.,  edits  yewij-By  for  pairncf&Ti,  but  the 
more  difficult  reading  may  well  be  genuine.  Compare 
EuTHYMius  Zigabenus  {Pttuopl.  pars  ii.  tit.  23,  Adv.  Bogo- 
milos,  c   16,  in  the  Latin  version  in  Max.  Bibl.  Patrum,  xix. 


39 

224),  "  Nisi  quis  baptizaUis  fuerit  ex  aqua  et  Spiritu  sancto, 
non  intrabit  in  regnum  Dei,"  and  see  Jeremy  Taylor,  as 
quoted  below.  Didymus  of  Alexandria  gives  as  the  words 
of  Christ  (etVev  6t),  "Ye  must  be  born  of  water"  {De  Trin.  ii. 
12,  p.  250,  Migne  xxxix.  672).  It  will  be  seen  that  all  these 
examples  purport  to  be  express  quotations. 

My  principal  object  in  this  long  discussion  has  been  to 
show  how  false  is  the  assumption  on  which  the  author  of 
Supernatural  Religion  proceeds  in  his  treatment  of  Justin's 
quotations,  and  those  of  other  early  Christian  writers.  But 
the  fallacy  of  his  procedure  may,  perhaps,  be  made  more 
striking  by  some  illustrations  of  the  way  in  which  the  very 
passage  of  John  which  we  have  been  considering  is  quoted 
by  a  modern  English  writer.  I  have  noted  nine  quotations 
of  the  passage  by  Jeremy  Taylor,  who  is  not  generally  sup- 
posed to  have  used  many  apocryphal  Gospels.  All  of  these 
differ  from  the  common  English  version,  and  only  two  of 
them  are  alike.  They  exemplify  all  the  peculiarities  of  vari- 
ation from  the  common  text  upon  which  the  writers  of  the 
Tiibingen  school  and  others  have  laid  such  stress  as  proving 
that  Justin  cannot  have  here  quoted  John.  I  will  number 
these  quotations,  with  a  reference  to  the  volume  and  page 
in  which  they  occur  in  Heber's  edition  of  Jeremy  Taylor's 
Works,  London,  1828,  15  vols.  8vo,  giving  also  such  specifi- 
cations as  may  enable  one  to  find  the  passages  in  any  other 
edition  of  his  complete  Works ;  and,  without  copying  them 
all  in  full,  will  state  their  peculiarities.  No.  i.  Life  of  Christ, 
Part  I.  Sect.  IX.  Disc.  VI.  Of  Baptism,  part  i.  §  12.  Heber, 
vol.  ii.  p.  240. —  No.  2.  Ibid.  Disc.  VI.  Of  baptizing  Infants, 
part  ii.  §  26.  Heber,  ii.  288. —  No.  3.  Ibid.  §  32.  Heber,  ii. 
292. —  No.  4.  Liberty  of  Prophesying,  Sect.  XVIII.  §  7. 
Heber,  viii.  153. —  No.  5.  Ibid,  Ad  7.  Heber,  viii.  190. —  No. 
6.  Ibid.  Ad  18.  Heber,  viii.  191. —  No.  7.  Ibid.  Ad  18. 
Heber,  viii.  193. —  No.  8.  Disc,  of  Confirm.  Sect.  I.  Heber, 
xi.  238. —  No.  9.  Ibid.     Heber,  xi.  244. 

We  may  notice  the  following  points  :  — 

I.  He  has  "unless"  for  "except,"  uniformly.  This  is  a 
trifling  variation ;  but,  reasoning  after  the  fashion  of  Super- 


40 

natural  Religion,  we  should  say  that  this  uniformity  of  vari- 
ation could  not  be  referred  to  accident,  but  proved  that  he 
quoted  from  a  different  text  from  that  of  the  authorized 
version. 

2.  He  has  "kingdom  of  heaven"  ior  "kingdom  of  God" 
six  times  ;  viz.,  Nos.  i,  2,  3,  4,  5,  7. 

3.  '^Heaven"  simply  for  "kingdom  of  God"  once;  No.  6. 

4.  " Shall jiot  enter"  for  "cannot  enter"  four  times;  Nos. 
4j  5j  7>  8 ;  comp.  also  No.  6. 

5.  The  second  person  plural,  jj/<?,  for  the  third  person  sin- 
gular, twice  ;  Nos.  3,  7. 

6.  "Baptized  with  water"  for  ^^  born  of  water"  once; 
No.  7. 

7.  "Born  again  by  water"  for  "born  of  water"  once; 
No.  6. 

8.  "Both  of^2iter  and  the  Spirit"  for  "  ^t/" water  and  ofthQ 
Spirit"  once;   No.  9. 

9.  "Of"  is  omitted  before  "the  Spirit"  six  times;  Nos. 
I,  2,  3,  6,  7,  8. 

10.  "Holy"  is  inserted  before  "Spirit"  twice;  Nos,  i,  8. 
No.  I  reads,  for  example,  "  Unless  a  man  be  born  of  water 

and  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven!' 

Supernatural  Religion  insists  that,  when  Justin  uses  such 
an  expression  as  "  Christ  said,"  we  may  expect  a  verbally 
accurate  quotation.*  Now  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that 
the  Christian  Fathers  frequently  use  such  a  formula  when 
they  mean  to  give  merely  the  substance  of  what  Christ  said, 
and  not  the  exact  words  ;  but  let  us  apply  our  author's  prin- 
ciple to  Jeremy  Taylor.     No.  3  of  his  quotations  reads  thus: 

"Therefore  our  Lord  hath  defined  it,  U?tless ye  be  born  of 
water  and  the  Spirit,  ye  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven." 

No.  6  reads,  "  Though  Christ  said,  None  but  those  that  are 
bom  again  by  water  and  the  Spirit  shall  enter  into  heaven." 

No.  7  reads,  "  For  Christ  never  said.  Unless  ye  be  baptized 

*  "  Justin,  in  giving  the  words  of  Jesus,  clearly  professed  to  make  an  exact  quotation." — Sw 
^ernatural  Religion,  iL  309,  7th  ed. 


41 

with  fire  and  the  Spirit,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  but  of  water  and  the  Spirit  he  did  say  it" 

I  will  add  one  quotation  from  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
which  certainly  must  be  quoting  from  another  apocryphal 
Gospel,  different  from  those  used  by  Jeremy  Taylor  (he  evi- 
dently had  several),  inasmuch  as  it  professes  to  give  the  very 
words  of  Christ,  and  gives  them  twice  in  precisely  the  same 
form : — 

"Our  Saviour  Christ  saith,  None  can  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God  except  he  be  regenerate  and  bom  anew  of 
water  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost!'  {Public  Baptism  of  Infants ^ 
and  Baptism  of  those  of  Riper  Years!) 

It  has  been  shown,  I  trust,  that  in  this  quotation  of  the 
language  of  Christ  respecting  regeneration  the  verbal  differ- 
ences between  Justin  and  John  are  not  such  as  to  render  it 
improbable  that  the  former  borrowed  from  the  latter.  The 
variations  of  phraseology  are  easily  accounted  for,  and  are 
matched  by  similar  variations  in  writers  who  unquestionably 
used  the  Gospel  of  John. 

The  positive  reasons  for  believing  that  Justin  derived  his 
quotation  from  this  source  are,  (i)  the  fact  that  in  no  other 
report  of  the  teaching  of  Christ  except  that  of  John  do  we 
find  this  figure  of  the  new  birth ;  (2)  the  insistence  in  both 
Justin  and  John  on  the  necessity  of  the  new  birth  to  an  en- 
trance into  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  (3)  its  mention  in  both 
in  connection  with  baptism ;  (4)  and  last  and  most  important 
of  all,  the  fact  that  Justin's  remark  on  the  impossibility  of  a 
second  natural  birth  is  such  a  platitude  in  the  form  in  which 
he  presents  it,  that  we  cannot  regard  it  as  original.  We  can 
only  explain  its  introduction  by  supposing  that  the  language 
of  Christ  which  he  quotes  was  strongly  associated  in  his 
memory  with  the  question  of  Nicodemus  as  recorded  by 
John.*  Other  evidences  of  the  use  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  by 
Justin  are  the  following :  — 

{d)  While  Justin's  conceptions  in  regard  to  the  Logos  were 
undoubtedly  greatly  affected  by  Philo  and  the  Alexandrian 

•Engelhardt  in  his  recent  work  on  Justin  observes:  "This  remark  sets  aside  all  doubt  of  the 
reference  to  the  fourth  Gospel." — Das  Ckristenihutn  jfustins  des  Miirtyrert,  Erlangen,  1878, 


42 

philosophy,  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos  was 
utterly  foreign  to  that  philosophy,  and  could  only  have  been 
derived,  it  would  seem,  from  the  Gospel  of  John.  He  ac- 
cordingly speaks  very  often  in  language  similar  to  that  of 
John  (i.  14)  of  the  Logos  as  "made  flesh,"*  or  as  "having 
become  man."  t  That  in  the  last  phrase  he  should  prefer 
the  term  "man"  to  the  Hebraistic  "flesh"  can  excite  no 
surprise.  With  reference  to  the  deity  of  the  Logos  and  his 
instrumental  agency  in  creation,  compare  also  especially 
Apol.  ii.  6,  "through  him  God  created  all  things  "  {6C  avrov  Travra 
EKTiGe),  Dial.  c.  56,  and  Apol.  i.  63,  with  John  i.  1-3.  Since 
the  Fathers  who  immediately  followed  Justin,  as  Theophilus, 
Irenaeus,  Clement,  Tertullian,  unquestionably  founded  their 
doctrine  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos  on  the  Gospel  of 
John,  the  presumption  is  that  Justin  did  the  same.  He  pro- 
fesses to  hold  his  view,  in  which  he  owns  that  some  Chris- 

p.  350.  Weizsacker  is  equally  strong. — Untersuchungen  VLber  die  evang.  Geschichte,  Gotha, 
1864,  pp.  228,  229. 

Dr.  Edwin  A.  Abbott,  in  the  very  interesting  article  Gospels  in  vol.  x.  of  the  ninth  edition  of 
the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  objects  that  Justin  cannot  have  quoted  the  Fourth  Gospel  here, 
because  "he  is  arguing  for  baptism  by  wa/^'r,"  and  "it  is  inconceivable  that.  .  .  he  should  not 
only  quote  inaccurately,  but  omit  the  very  words  [John  iii.  5]  that  were  best  adapted  to  support 
his  argument."  (p.  821.)  But  Justin  is  not  addressing  an  "  argument "  to  the  Roman  Emperor 
and  Senate  for  the  necessity  of  baptism  by  water,  but  simply  giving  an  account  of  Christian  rites 
and  Christian  worship.  And  it  is  not  the  mere  rite  of  baptism  by  water  as  such,  but  the  necessity 
of  the  new  birth  through  repentance  and  a  voluntary  change  of  life  on  the  part  of  him  who  dedi- 
cates himself  to  God  by  this  rite,  on  which  Justin  lays  the  main  stress, —  "the  baptism  of  the  soul 
from  wrath  and  covetousness,  envy  and  hatred."  (Comp.  Dial.  cc.  13,  14,  18.)  Moreover,  the 
simple  word  avayevvrfiiiTE^  as  he  uses  it  in  the  immediate  context,  and  as  it  was  often  used, 
includes  the  idea  of  baptism.  This  fact  alone  answers  the  objection.  A  perusal  of  the  chapter  in 
which  Justin  treats  the  subject  {Afiol.  i.  61)  will  show  that  it  was  not  at  all  necessary  to  his  pur- 
pose in  quoting  the  words  of  Christ  to  introduce  the  f^  v6aTog.  It  would  almost  seem  as  if 
Dr.  Abbott  must  have  been  thinking  of  the  Clementine  Homilies  (xi.  24-27;  xiii.  21),  where 
excessive  importance  ii  attached  to  the  mere  element  of  water. 

*aapKnTOir/0r!^-  e.g.,  A/ol.  c.  32,  6  ^6yog,  of  Tiva  rpSTrov  aapKoiroirjOng  avOpurrog 
yfynvev.  So  c.  66  bis  ;  Dial.  cc.  45,  84,  87,  100.  Comp.  Dial.  cc.  48  ("was  born  a  man  of  like 
natiu'e  with  us,  having  flesh  "),  70  ("  became  embodied  "). 

^ hvOpuTTO^  yev6/ievoc]  Apol.  i.  cc.  5  ("the  Logos  himself  who  took  form  and  became 
man"),  23  bis,  32,  42,  50,  53,  63  bis;  Apol.  ii.  c.  13;  Dial.  cc.  48,  57,  64,  67,  6S  bis,  76,  85,  100, 
loi,  125  bis.  I  have  availed  myself  in  this  and  the  preceding  note  of  the  references  given  by  Pro- 
fessor Drummond  in  his  article  "Justin  Martyr  and  the  Fourth  Gospel,"  in  the  T/ieol.  Revie'w  for 
April  and  July,  1S77;  see  vol.  xiv.,  p.  172.  To  this  valuable  essay  I  am  much  indebted,  and  shall 
have  occasion  to  refer  to  it  repeatedly.  Professor  Drummond  compares  at  length  Justin's  doctrine 
of  the  Logos  with  that  of  the  proem  to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  decides  rightly,  I  think,  that  the 
statement  of  the  former  "is,  beyond  all  question,  in  a  more  developed  form"  than  that  of  the  latter. 
In  John  it  is  important  to  observe  that  /oyof  is  used  with  a  meaning  derived  from  the  sense  of 
"word"  rather  than  "reason,"  as  in  Philo  and  Justin.  The  subject  is  too  large  to  be  entered 
upon  here. 


43 

tians  do  not  agree  with  him,  "  because  we  have  been  com- 
manded by  Christ  himself  not  to  follow  the  doctrines  of  men, 
but  those  which  were  proclaimed  by  the  blessed  prophets 
and  taught  by  him."  {Dial.  c.  48.)  Now,  as  Canon  Westcott 
observes,  "the  Synoptists  do  not  anywhere  declare  Christ's 
pre-existence."  *  And  where  could  Justin  suppose  himself 
to  have  found  this  doctrine  taught  by  Christ  except  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  ?  Compare  Apol.  i.  46  :  "  That  Christ  is  the 
first-born  of  God,  being  the  Logos  [the  divine  Reason]  of 
which  every  race  of  men  have  been  partakers  [comp.  John  i. 
4>  5>  9]»  we  have  been  taught  and  have  declared  before.  And 
those  who  have  lived  according  to  Reason  are  Christians, 
even  though  they  were  deemed  atheists  ;  as,  for  example, 
Socrates  and  Heraclitus  and  those  like  them  among  the 
Greeks." 

(p)  But  more  may  be  said.  In  one  place  {Dial.  c.  105) 
Justin,  according  to  the  natural  construction  of  his  language 
and  the  course  of  his  argument,  appears  to  refer  to  the 
*'  Memoirs  "  as  the  source  from  which  he  and  other  Chris- 
tians had  learnt  that  Christ  as  the  Logos  was  the  "only- 
begotten  "  Son  of  God,  a  title  applied  to  him  by  John  alone 
among  the  New  Testament  writers  ;  see  John  i.  14,  18;  iii. 
16,  18.  The  passage  reads,  "For  that  he  was  the  only- 
begotten  of  the  Father  of  the  universe,  having  been  begotten 
by  him  in  a  peculiar  manner  as  his  Logos  and  Power,  and 
having  afterwards  become  man  through  the  virgin,  as  we  have 
learned  from  the  Memoirs,  I  showed  before."  It  is  possible 
that  the  clause,  "as  we  have  learned  from  the  Memoirs," 
refers  not  to  the  main  proposition  of  the  sentence,  but  only 
to  the  fact  of  the  birth  from  a  virgin  ;  but  the  context  as 
well  as  the  natural  construction  leads  to  a  different  view, 
as  Professor  Drummond  has  ably  shown  in  the  article  in 
the  Theological  Review  (xiv.  178-182)  already  referred  to  in 
a  note.     He  observes :  — 

"  The  passage  is  part  of  a  very  long  comparison,  whicli  Justin  insti- 
tutes between   the  twenty-second   Psalm  and  the  recorded  events  of 

•"Introd.  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,"  in  Tht  Holy  Bible  .  .  .  vjith .  .  .  Commentary,  etc, 
ed.  by  F.  C.  Cook,  N.  T.  vol.  ii.  (1880),  p.  Ixxxiv. 


44 

Christ's  life.  For  the  purposes  of  this  comparison  he  refers  to  or 
quotes  "the  Gospel"  once,  and  "the  Memoirs"  ten  times,  and  further 
refers  to  the  latter  three  times  in  the  observations  which  immediately 
follow.  .  .  .  They  are  appealed  to  here  because  they  furnish  the  succes- 
sive steps  of  the  proof  by  which  the  Psalm  is  shown  to  be  prophetic." 

In  this  case  the  words  in  the  Psalm  (xxii.  20,  21)  which 
have  to  be  illustrated  are,  "  Deliver  my  soul  from  the  sword, 
and  my  only-begotten  [Justin  perhaps  read  ^^  thy  only- 
begotten  "]  from  the  power  of  the  dog.  Save  me  from  the 
mouth  of  the  lion,  and  my  humiliation  from  the  horns  of 
unicorns."  "These  words,"  Justin  remarks,  "are  again  in  a 
similar  manner  a  teaching  and  prophecy  of  the  things  that 
belonged  to  him  [rwv  hv-i^v  airu]  and  that  were  going  to  hap- 
pen. For  that  he  was  the  only-begotten,"  etc.,  as  quoted 
above.     Professor  Drummond  well  observes  :  — 

"There  is  here  no  ground  of  comparison  whatever  except  in  the  word 
fiovo-yEv?/g  ["only-begotten"].  ...  It  is  evident  that  Justin  understood 
this  as  referring  to  Christ ;  and  accordingly  he  places  the  same  word 
emphatically  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence  in  which  he  proves  the 
reference  of  this  part  of  the  Psalm  to  Jesus.  For  the  same  reason  he 
refers  not  only  to  events,  but  to  to  bvra  avru  ["  the  things  that  belonged 
to  him  "].  These  are  taken  up  first  in  the  nature  and  title  of  /lovoyev^g, 
which  immediately  suggests  /o>'of  and  (J)''i'a,"<f  ["  Logos  "  and  "power"], 
while  the  events  are  introduced  and  discussed  afterwards.  The  allusion 
here  to  the  birth  through  the  virgin  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  quotation 
from  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  probably  introduced  simply  to  show  how 
Christ,  although  the  only-begotten  Logos,  was  nevertheless  a  man.  If 
the  argument  were,  —  These  words  allude  to  Christ,  because  the  Me- 
moirs tell  us  that  he  was  born  from  a  virgin,  —  it  would  be  utterly  inco- 
herent. If  it  were,  —  These  words  allude  to  Christ,  because  the  Me- 
moirs say  that  he  was  the  only-begotten,  —  it  would  be  perfectly  valid 
from  Justin's  point  of  view.  It  would  not,  however,  be  suitable  for  a 
Jew,  for  whom  the  fact  that  Christ  was  /wvoyEV7/c,  not  being  an  historical 
event,  had  to  rest  upon  other  authority ;  and  therefore  Justin  changing  his 
usual  form,  says  that  he  had  already  explained  to  him  a  doctrine  which 
the  Christians  learned  from  the  Memoirs.  It  appears  to  me,  then,  most 
probable,  that  the  peculiar  Johannine  title  fiovoytvijg  existed  in  the  Gos- 
pels used  by  Justin.  * 

In  what  follows,  Prof.  Drummond  answers  Thoma's  ob- 

•  Justin  also  designates  Christ  as  "  the  only-begotten  Son"  in  a  fragment  of  his  work  against 
Marcion,  preserved  by  Irenaeus,  Har.  iv.  6.  §  2.  Comp.  Justin,  AfoL  i.  c.  23 ;  ii.  c.  6; 
Dial.  c.  48. 


45 

jections  *  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  correcting  some  mis- 
translations. In  the  expression,  "  as  I  showed  before,"  the 
reference  may  be,  not  to  c,  lOO,  but  to  c.  6i  and  similar  pas- 
sages, where  it  is  argued  that  the  Logos  was  "  begotten  by- 
God  before  all  creatures,"  which  implies  a  unique  generation. 

(c)  In  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho  (c.  88),  Justin  cites  as 
the  words  of  John  the  Baptist :  "  I  am  not  the  Christ,  but 

the    voice     of    one    crying  "  ;     ovk   elfil   6   XpiarSg,  a?J.a   cpuvy   ^ouvTog. 

This  declaration,  "  I  am  not  the  Christ,"  and  this  application 
to  himself  of  the  language  of  Isaiah,  are  attributed  to  the 
Baptist  only  in  the  Gospel  of  John  (i.  20,  23 ;  comp.  iii.  28). 
Hilgenfeld  recognizes  here  the  use  of  this  Gospel. 

(d)  Justin  says  of  the  Jews,  "They  are  justly  upbraided  .  .  . 
by  Christ  himself  as  knowing  neither  the  Father  nor  the 
Son"  {A/>o/.  i.  63).  Comp.  John  viii.  19,  "Ye  neither  know 
me  nor  my  Father  "  ;  and  xvi.  3,  "  They  have  not  known  the 
Father  nor  me."  It  is  true  that  Justin  quotes  in  this  con- 
nection Matt.  xi.  27 ;  but  his  language  seems  to  be  in- 
fluenced by  the  passages  in  John  above  cited,  in  which  alone 
the  Jews  are  directly  addressed. 

(e)  Justin  says  that  "  Christ  healed  those  who  were  blind 
from  their  birth,"  rovg  ek  yevETfjg  -KJipovg  {Dial.  c.  49 ;  comp. 
Apol.  i.  22,  EK  jEverf/g  TfovTjpoix,  where  several  editors,  though 
not  Otto,  would  substitute  T^r/pov^  by  conjecture).  There 
seems  to  be  a  reference  here  to  John  ix.  i,  where  we  have 
Tv^Uv EK  jEVETiig,  the  phrase  inyevETfK,  "from  birth,"  being  pecu- 
liar to  John  among  the  Evangelists,  and  7r//po?  being  a  com- 
mon synonyme  of  rvi^Uq;  comp.  the  Apostolical  Constitutions 
v.  7.  §  17,  where  we  have  6  ek  yever^c '^w^c  in  a  clear  reference 

•In  Hilgenfeld's  Zeiisc/tri/i /Ur  wiss.  TheoL,  1875,  xviii.  551  fE.  For  other  discussions  of 
this  passage,  one  may  see  Semisch,  Die  apost.  DenkwHrdigkeiten  u.s.w.,  p.  188  f.  ;  Hilgenfeld, 
Krit.  Unier^ichungen  u.s.w.,  p.  300  f.  {versus  Semisch);  Riggenbach,  Die  Zeugnissef.  d.  Ev. 
Jofutnnis,  Basel,  1866,  p.  163  f.;  Tischendorf,  IVann  -wurden  unsere  Evangelien  ver/assif 
p.  32,  46  Aufl.     But  Professor  Drummond's  treatment  of  the  question  is  the  most  thorough. 

Grimm  (Theal.  Stud.  u.  Krit..,  1851,  p.  687  ff.)  agrees  with  Semisch  that  it  is  "  in  the  highest 
degree  arbitrary"  to  refer  Justin's  expression,  "  as  we  have  learned  from  the  Memoirs,"  merely 
to  the  participial  clause  which  mentions  the  birth  from  a  virgin ;  but  like  Thoma,  who  agrees 
with  him  that  the  reference  is  to  the  designation  "only-begotten,"  he  thinks  that  Justin  has  in 
mind  merely  the  confession  of  Peter  (Matt.  xvi.  16),  referred  to  in  Dial.  c.  100.  This  rests  on  the 
false  as'^umption  that  Justin  can  only  be  referring  back  to  c.  100,  and  makes  him  argue  that  "the 
Son"  merely  is  equivalent  to  "the  only-beeotten  Son  " 


46 

to  this  passage  of  John,  and  the  Clementine  Homilies  xix. 
22,  where  •Tepi  rov  £K  jEVETfjg  Trripov  occurs  also  in  a  similar 
reference.*  John  is  the  only  Evangelist  who  mentions  the 
healing  of  any  congenital  infirmity. 

(/)  The  exact  coincidence  between  Justin  {Apol.  i.  52; 
comp.  Dial.  cc.  14  (quoted  as  from  Hosed),  32,  64,  118)  and 
John  (xix.  2,7)  in  citing  Zechariah  xii.  10  in  a  form  different 
from  the  Septuagint,  oipov-ai  elg  bv  e^EKivTr^aav,  "  they  shall 
look  on  him  whom  they  pierced,"  instead  of  e-iniiletpovTai  irpog  fji 
avd'  G)v  Karupxt/aavTo,  is  remarkable,  and  not  sufficiently  ex- 
plained by  supposing  both  to  have  borrowed  from  Rev.  i.  7, 
"every  eye  shall  see  him,  and  they  who  pierced  him." 
Much  stress  has  been  laid  on  this  coincidence  by  Semisch 
(p.  200  ff.)  and  Tischendorf  (p.  34)  ;  but  it  is  possible,  if  not 
rather  probable,  that  Justin  and  John  have  independently 
followed  a  reading  of  the  Septuagint  which  had  already 
attained  currency  in  the  first  century  as  a  correction  of  the 
text  in  conformity  with  the  Hebrew.f 

(g)  Compare  A/>ol.  i.  13  (cited  by  Prof,  Drummond,  p.  323), 
"Jesus  Christ  who  became  our  teacher  of  these  things  and 
was  born  to  this  end  (^k  tovto  yewijdevTa)^  who  was  crucified 
under  Pontius  Pilate,"  with  Christ's  answer  to  Pilate  (John 
xviii.  37),  "To  this  end  have  I  been  born,  sk  tovto  yeyewTjfiat, 
.  .  .  that  I  might  bear  witness  to  the  truth," 

{k)  Justin  says  {Dial.  c.  56,  p,  276  D),  "I  affirm  that  he 
never  did  or  spake  any  thing  but  what  he  that  made  the 
world,  above  whom  there  is  no  other  God,  willed  that  he 
should  both  do  and  speak";  J  comp.  John  viii.  28,  29:  "As 

•The  context  in  Justin,  as  Otto  justly  remarks,  proves  that  Tzr/pnt'x  must  here  signify 
"blind,"  not  "maimed";  comp.  the  quotation  from  Isa.  xxxv.  5,  which  precedes,  and  the  "causing 
this  one  to  see,"  which  follows.  Keim's  exclamation  —  "notablind  man  at  all!"  —  would  have 
been  spared,  if  he  had  attended  to  this.  (See  his  Gesch.  Jesu  von  Nazara,  i.  139,  note;  i.  189, 
Eng.  trans.) 

t  See  Credner,  Beitrixge  u.s.w.,  ii.  293  ff. 

tDr.  Davidson  {Introd.  to  the  Study  of  the  N.  T.,  London,  1868,  ii,  370)  translates  the  last 
dause,  "  intended  that  he  should  do  and  to  associate  with^' {^\c).  Though  the  meaning  "to 
converse  with,"  and  then  "to  speak,"  "  to  say,"  is  not  assigned  to  oiiikelv  in  Liddell  and  Scott, 
or  Rost  and  Palm's  edition  of  Passow,  Justin  in  the  very  next  sentence  uses  /uiAdv  as  an  equiva- 
lent substitute,  and  this  meaning  is  common  in  the  later  Greek.  See  Sophocles,  Greek  Lex.  s.v. 
ofit'Mu,  Of  Dr.  Davidson's  translation  I  must  confess  my  inability  to  make  either  grammar  or 
sense. 


47 

the  Father  taught  me,  I  speak  these  things;  and  ...  I 
always  do  the  things  that  please  him  "  ;  also  John  iv.  34;  v. 
I9»  30;  vii.  16;  xii.  49,  50.  In  the  language  of  Trypho 
which  immediately  follows  (p.  277  A),  "  We  do  not  suppose 
that  you  represent  him  to  have  said  or  done  or  spoken  any- 
thing contrary  to  the  will  of  the  Creator  of  the  universe," 
we  are  particularly  reminded  of  John  xii.  49,  —  "The  Father 
who  sent  me  hath  himself  given  me  a  commandment,  what  I 
should  say  and  what  I  should  speaks 

{i)  Referring  to  a  passage  of  the  Old  Testament  as  signi- 
fying that  Christ  "  was  to  rise  from  the  dead  on  the  third 
day  after  his  crucifixion,"  Justin  subjoins  {Dial.  c.  100), 
"which  he  received  from  his  Father,"  or  more  literally, 
"which  [thing]  he  has,  having  received  it  from  his  Father," 
oaTTo  rm  iza-pog  Tm^uv  exet.  A  reference  here  to  John  x.  18 
seems  probable,  where  Jesus  says  respecting  his  life,  "I 
have  authority  {iiovaiar)  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  authority 
to  receive  it  again  (~d/.iv  la^eiv  avTip) ;  this  charge   I  received 

from  my  Father  "   (e/MfSov  Tzapa  tov  Tza-pog  fiov). 

(k)  Justin  says,  "We  were  taught  that  the  bread  and 
wine  were  the  flesh  and  blood  of  that  Jesus  who  was  made 
flesh."  {Apol.  i.  c.  66.)  This  use  of  the  term  "flesh  "  instead 
of  "body"  in  describing  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist  suggests 
John  vi.  51-56. 

(/)  Professor  Drummond  notes  that  Justin,  like  John  (iii. 
14,  15),  regards  the  elevation  of  the  brazen  serpent  in  the 
wilderness  as  typical  of  the  crucifixion  {Apol.  i.  c.  60  ;  Dial. 
cc.  91,  94,  131),  and  in  speaking  of  it  says  that  it  denoted 
"  salvation  to  those  who  flee  for  refuge  to  him  who  sent  his 
crucified  Son  into  the  world"  {Dial.  c.  91).*  "Now  this 
idea  of  God's  sending  his  Son  into  the  world  occurs  in  the 
same  connection  in  John  iii,  17,  and  strange  as  it  may  ap- 
pear, it  is  an  idea  which  in  the  New  Testament  is  peculiar 
to  John."  Prof.  Drummond  further  observes  that  "in  the 
four  instances  in  which  John  speaks  of  Christ  as  being  sent 
into  the  world,  he  prefers  a-o(T7t/./«,  so  that  Justin's  phrase  is 

•  Or,  as  it  is  expressed  in  Dial.  c.  94,  "  salvation  to  those  -who  believe  in  him  who  was  to  die 
through  this  sign,  the  cross,"  which  comes  nearer  to  John  iii.  15. 


48 

not  entirely  coincident  with  the  Johannine.  But  the  use  of 
7r£/z7rw  ["to  send"]  itself  is  curious.  Except  by  John,  it  is 
applied  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament  only  twice,  whereas 
John  uses  it  [thus]  twenty-five  times.  Justin's  language, 
therefore,  in  the  thought  which  it  expresses,  in  the  selec- 
tion of  words,  and  in  its  connection,  is  closely  related  to 
John's,  and  has  no  other  parallel  in  the  New  Testament." 
{Theol.  Rev.  xiv.  324.)  Compare  also  Dial.  c.  140,  "accord- 
ing to  the  will  of  the  Father  who  sent  him,"  etc.,  and  Dial. 
c.  17,  "the  only  blameless  and  righteous  Light  sent  from 
God  to  men." 

(»2)  Liicke,  Otto,  Semisch,  Keim,  Mangold,  and  Drum- 
mond  are  disposed  to  find  a  reminiscence  of  John  i.  13  in 
Justin's  language  where,  after  quoting  from  Genesis  xlix.  11, 
he  says,  "  since  his  blood  was  not  begotten  of  human  seed, 
but  by  the  will  of  God "  {Dial.  c.  63 ;  comp.  the  similar 
language  Apol.  i.  32;  Dial.  cc.  54,  "by  the  power  of  God"; 
yS).  They  suppose  that  Justin  referred  John  i,  13  to  Christ, 
following  an  early  reading  of  the  passage,  namely,  bg .  .  . 
iyewijdr],  "who  was  born "  [or  "begotten"]  instead  of  "who 
werehorn."  We  find  this  reading  in  Irenaeus  {Hcer.  iii.  16. 
§  2;  19.  §  2),  Tertullian  {De  Came  Christi  cc.  19,  24), 
Ambrose  once,  Augustine  once,  also  in  Codex  Veronensis 
(b)  of  the  Old  Latin,  and  some  other  authorities.  Tertullian 
indeed  boldly  charges  the  Valentinians  with  corrupting  the 
text  by  changing  the  singular  to  the  plural.  Ronsch,  whom 
no  one  will  call  an  "apologist,"  remarks,  "The  citation  of 
these  words  .  .  .  certainly  belongs  to  the  proofs  that  Justin 
Martyr  knew  the  Gospel  of  John."  *  I  have  noticed  this,  in 
deference  to  these  authorities,  but  am  not  confident  that 
there  is  any  reference  in  Justin's  language  to  John  i.  13. 

(«)  Justin  says  {Dial.  c.  88),  "The  Apostles  have  written" 
that  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus  "  as  he  came  up  from  the  water 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  dove  lighted  upon  him."  The  descent 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  dove  is  mentioned  by  the  Apostles 
Matthew  and  John  (Matt.  iii.  16 ;  John  i.  32,  33).     This  is 

*Dat  ntue  Testament  Tertullians,  Leipz.  1871,  p.  654. 


49 

the  only  place  in  which  Justin  uses  the  expression  "the 
Apostles  have  written." 

{o)  Justin  says  {Dial.  c.  103)  that  Pilate  sent  Jesus  to 
Herod  bound.  The  binding  is  not  mentioned  by  Luke ;  but 
if  Justin  used  the  Gospel  of  John,  the  mistake  is  easily 
explained  through  a  confusion  in  memory  of  Luke  xxiii.  7 
with  John  xviii.  24  (comp.  ver.  12)  ;  and  this  seems  the  most 
natural  explanation  ;  see  however  Matt,  xxvii.  2  ;  Mark  xv.  i. 
Examples  of  such  a  confusion  of  different  passages  repeatedly 
occur  in  Justin's  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament,  as  also 
of  his  citing  the  Old  Testament  for  facts  which  it  does  not 
contain.* 

(/)  The  remark  of  Justin  that  the  Jews  dared  to  call 
Jesus  a  magician  (comp.  Matt.  ix.  34 ;  xii.  24)  and  a  deceiver 
of  the  people  i^jaomTuavov)  reminds  one  strongly  of  John  vii.  1 2  ; 
see  however  also  Matt,  xxvii.  63.  —  "Through  his  stripes," 
says  Justin  {Dial.  c.  17),  "there  is  healing  to  those  who 
through  him  come  to  the  Father,"  which  suggests  John  xiv. 
6,  "  No  man  cometh  to  the  Father  but  through  me "  ;  but 
the  reference  is  uncertain;  comp.  Eph.  ii.  18,  and  Heb.  vii. 
25    with    the    similar    expression    in   Dial.   c.  43.  —  So    also 

it     is     not     clear    that    in    the     —poaKWOviiev,    P-oyw  koI   ahjdEig.  Ti/iuvreg 

{Apol.  i.  6)  there  is  any  allusion  to  John  iv.  24.  f  —  I  pass 
over  sundry  passages  where  Bindemann,  Otto,  Semisch, 
Thoma,  Drummond  and  others  have  found  resemblances 
more  or  less  striking  between  the  language  of  Justin  and 

•See,  for  example,  Apol.  i.  44,  where  the  words  in  Deut.  xxx.  15,  19,  are  represented  as 
addressed  XoAdam  (comp.  Gen.  ii.  16,  17);  and  Apol.  i.  60,  where  Justin  refers  to  Num.  xxi. 
8,  9  for  various  particulars  found  only  in  his  own  imagination.  The  extraordinary  looseness  with 
which  he  quotes  Plato  here  (as  elsewhere)  may  also  be  noted  (see  the  Titneeus  c.  12,  p.  36  B,  C). 
On  Justin's  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament,  which  are  largely  marked  by  the  same  character- 
istics as  his  quotations  from  the  Gospels,  see  Credner,  Beitriige  u.s.w.,  vol.  ii.  (1S3S);  Norton, 
Genuineness eic,  i.  213  ff.,and  Addit.  Notes,  p.  ccxviii.  ff.,  2ded.,  iS46(ist  ed.  1837);  Semisch.  Die 
apost.  DenkvMrdigkeiten  u.s.w.  (1S4S),  p.  239  flF. ;  Hilgenfeld,  ^W/.  UiUersuchungen  (1S50), 
p.  46  ff.  ;  Westcott,  Canon,  p.  121  ff.,  172  ff.,  4th  ed.  (1875);  Sanday,  The  Gospels  in  the  Second 
Century  (1876),  pp.  40  ff.,  iii  ff. 

t  Grimm,  however,  finds  here  "an  unmistakable  reminiscence"  of  John  iv.  24.  He  thinks 
Justin  used  /.ojt>  for  Trvevfjari  and  riuHivrtx  for  irpoaKwovvrer  because  rrveifja  and 
vpoCKWOvuev  immediately  precede.  {Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1851,  p.  691.)  But/.ojtj  koI 
a?.^Eig  seem  to  mean  simply,  "in  accordance  with  reason  and  truth";  comp.  Apol.  i.  68,  cited 
by  Otto,  also  c.  13,  lurd  }.6}ov  Tifubfiev. 


so 

John,  leaving  them  to  the  not  very  tender  mercies  of  Zeller  * 
and  Hilgenfeld.  f 

{q)  Justin's  vindication  of  Christians  for  not  keeping  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  on  the  ground  that  "  God  has  carried  on  the 
same  administration  of  the  universe  during  that  day  as 
during  all  others  "  {Dial.  c.  29,  comp.  c.  23)  is,  as  Mr.  Norton 
observes,  "a  thought  so  remarkable,  that  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  he  borrowed  it  from  what  was  said  by  our  Saviour 
when  the  Jews  were  enraged  at  his  having  performed  a 
miracle  on  the  Sabbath  :  — '  My  Father  has  been  working 
hitherto  as  I  am  working.'"  —  His  argument  also  against  the 
observance  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  from  the  fact  that  circum- 
cision was  permitted  on  that  day  may  {Dial.  c.  27)  have  been 
borrowed  from  John  vii.  22,  23. 

{r)  I  will  notice  particularly  only  one  more  passage,  in 
which  Professor  Drummond  proposes  an  original  and  very 
plausible  explanation  of  a  difhculty.  In  the  larger  Apology 
(c.  35),  as  he  observes,  the  following  words  are  quoted  from 
Isaiah  (Iviii.  2),  aWovai  fj.e  vvv  Kpimv,  "they  now  ask  of  me 
judgment "  ;  and  in  evidence  that  this  prophecy  was  fulfilled 
in  Christ,  Justin  asserts,  "they  mocked  him,  and  set  him  on 
the  judgment-seat  (hKadiaav  ini  [HjnaToc),  and  said.  Judge  for 
us."  This  proceeding  is  nowhere  recorded  in  our  Gospels, 
but  in  John  xix.  13  we  read,  "Pilate  therefore  brought  Jesus 
out,  and  sat  on  the  judgment-seat"  {kol  inadiaev  eni  fi^fMrog). 
But  the  words  just  quoted  in  the  Greek,  the  correspondence 
of  which  with  those  of  Justin  will  be  noticed,  admit  in  them- 
selves the  rendering,  "and  se^  Jam  on  the  judgment-seat"; 
and  what  was  more  natural,  as  Prof.  Drummond  remarks, 
than  that  Justin,  in  his  eagerness  to  find  a  fulfilment  of  the 
prophecy,  should  take  them  in  this  sense }  "  He  might  then 
add  the  statement  that  the  people  said  Kpivov  inuv  ['judge 
for  us ']  as  an  obvious  inference  from  the  fact  of  Christ's 
having  been  placed  on  the  tribunal,  just  as  in  an  earlier 
chapter  (c.  32)  he  appends  to  the  synoptic  account  the  circum- 

*DU  dusteren  Zeugnisu  .  .  .  des  vierten  Evang.,  in  the  Theol.  yoArMlcAer  (TUbingen) 
1845,  P'  ^"^"^  ff- 

t  Krilische  U titer suchungin  u.s.w.,  p.  302  f. 


51 

stance  that  the  ass  on  which  Christ  rode  into  Jerusalem  was 
bound  to  a  vine,  in  order  to  bring  the  event  into  connection 
with  Genesis  xHx.  ii."     {Theol.  Review,  xiv.  328.) 

These  evidences  of  Justin's  use  of  the  Gospel  of  John  are 
strengthened  somewhat  by  an  indication,  which  has  been 
generally  overlooked,  of  his  use  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John. 
In  I  John  iii.  i  we  read,  according  to  the  text  now  adopted 
by  the  best  critics,  as  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Tregelles, 
Alford,  Westcott  and  Hort,  "  Behold  what  love  the  Father 
hath  bestowed  upon  us,  that  we  should  be  called  children 

of     God  ;      and      we     are      so  '    ;      Iva   reicva   deov   K2,?j6ufiev,    Kat   iajiiv. 

This  addition  to  the  common  text,  koX  ea/iev,  "and  we  are," 
is  supported  by  a  great  preponderance  of  external  evidence. 
Compare  now  Justin  {Dial.  c.  123) :  "We  are  both  called  true 
children  of  God,  and  we  are  so  "  ;  koX  Oeov  rtuva  airidiva  KaXov/ieda 
ml  tfffiEv.  The  coincidence  seems  too  remarkable  to  be  acci- 
dental. Hilgenfeld  takes  the  same  view  {Einleit.  in  d.  N.  T., 
p.  69),  and  so  Ewald  {Die  johan.  Schriften,  ii.  395,  Anm.  4). 

It  also  deserves  to  be  considered  that,  as  Justin  wrote  a 
work  "Against  all  Heresies"  {Apol.  i.  26),  among  which  he 
certainly  included  those  of  Valentinus  and  Basilides  {Dial. 
c.  35),  he  could  hardly  have  been  ignorant  of  a  book  which, 
according  to  Irenaeus,  the  Valentinians  used  plenissime,  and 
to  which  the  Basilidians  and  apparently  Basilides  himself 
also  appealed  (Hippol.  Ref.  Hcer.  vii.  22,  27).  Credner 
recognizes  the  weight  of  this  argument.*  It  can  only  be 
met  by  maintaining  what  is  altogether  improbable,  that 
merely  the  later  Valentinians  and  Basilidians  made  use  of 
the  Gospel,  —  a  point  which  we  shall  examine  hereafter. 

In  judging  of  the  indications  of  Justin's  use  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  the  passages  cited  in  addition  to  those  which  relate 
to  his  Logos  doctrine  will  strike  different  persons  differently. 
There  will  be  few,  however,  I  think,  who  will  not  feel  that 
the  one  first  discussed  (that  relating  to  the  new  birth)  is  in 
itself  almost  a  decisive  proof  of  such  a  use,  and  that  the  one 
relating  to  John  the  Baptist  {c)  is  also  strong.     In  regard  to 

*  Gesckichte  des  neutest.  Kanon  (i860),  p.  15  f. ;  comp.  pp.  9,  12. 


52 

not  a  few  others,  while  the  possibility  of  accidental  agree- 
ment must  be  conceded,  the  probability  is  decidedly  against 
this,  and  the  accumulated  probabilities  form  an  argument  of 
no  little  weight.  It  is  not  then,  I  believe,  too  much  to  say, 
that  the  strong  presumption  from  the  universal  reception  of 
our  four  Gospels  as  sacred  books  in  the  time  of  Irenseus  that 
Justin's  "  Memoirs  of  Christ  composed  by  Apostles  and  their 
companions  "  were  the  same  books,  is  decidedly  confirmed 
by  these  evidences  of  his  use  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  We 
will  next  consider  the  further  confirmation  of  this  fact 
afforded  by  writers  who  flourished  between  the  time  of 
Justin  and  Irenaeus,  and  then  notice  some  objections  to  the 
view  which  has  been  presented. 

The  most  weighty  testimony  is  that  of  Tatian,  the  Assyr- 
ian, a  disciple  of  Justin.  His  literary  activity  may  be  placed 
at  about  A. D.  155-170  (Lightfoot).  In  his  "Address  to  the 
Greeks "  he  repeatedly  quotes  the  Fourth  Gospel,  though 
without  naming  the  author,  in  one  case  using  the  expression 
(to  Eiprtakvov)  which  is  scvcral  times  employed  in  the  New 
Testament  {e.g.  Acts  ii.  16;  Rom.  iv.  18)  in  introducing  a 
quotation  from  the  Scriptures  ;  see  his  Orat.  ad  Grcec.  c.  13, 
"  And  this  then  is  that  which  hath  been  said,  The  darkness 
comprehendeth  \or  overcometh]  not  the  light "  (John  i.  5) ; 
see  also  c.  19  (John  i.  3) ;  c.  4  (John  iv.  24).*  Still  more 
important  is  the  fact  that  he  composed  a  Harmony  of  our 
Four  Gospels  which  he  called  the .  Diatessaron  {i.e.  "the 
Gospel  made  out  of  Four  ").  This  fact  is  attested  by  Euse- 
bius  {Hist.  Eccl.  iv,  29),!  Epiphanius  {HcBr.  xlvi.  i),  who, 
however,  writes  from  hearsay,  and  Theodoret,  who  in  his 
work  on  Heresies  {Hcsr.  Fab.  i.  20)  says  that  he  found  more 
than  two  hundred  copies  of  the  book  held  in  esteem  in  his 
diocese,  and  substituted  for  it  copies  of  our  Four  Gospels. 

•  Even  Zeller  does  not  dispute  that  Tatian  quotes  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  ascribed  it  to  the 
Apostle  John,     {jrheol.  Jahrb.  1847,  P-  'S^-) 

t  An  expression  used  by  Eusebiiis  (in'n  li'tiV  h'TTuq,  literally,  "I  know  not  how")  has  been 
misunderstood  by  many  as  implying  that  he  had  not  seen  the  work  ;  but  Lightfoot  has  shown 
conclusively  that  this  inference  is  wholly  unwarranted.  It  only  implies  that  the  plan  of  the  work 
seemed  strange  to  him.  See  Contetnporary  Review  for  May,  1877,  p.  1136,  where  Lightfoot 
cites  36  examples  of  this  use  of  the  phrase  from  the  work  of  Origen  against  Celsus. 


53 

He  tells  us  that  Tatian,  who  is  supposed  to  have  prepared 
the  Harmony  after  he  became  a  Gnostic  Encratite,  had  "cut 
away  the  genealogies  and  such  other  passages  as  show  the 
Lord  to  have  been  born  of  the  seed  of  David  after  the  flesh." 
But  notwithstanding  this  mutilation,  the  work  seems  to  have 
been  very  popular  in  the  orthodox  churches  of  Syria  as  a 
convenient  compendium.  The  celebrated  Syrian  Father, 
Ephraem,  the  deacon  of  Edessa,  who  died  a.d.  373,  wrote  a 
commentary  on  it,  according  to  Dionysius  Bar-Salibi,  who 
flourished  in  the  last  part  of  the  twelfth  century.  Bar-Salibi 
was  well  acquainted  with  the  work,  citing  it  in  his  own 
Commentary  on  the  Gospels,  and  distinguishing  it  from  the 
Diatessaron  of  Ammonius,  and  from  a  later  work  by  Elias 
Salamensis,  also  called  Aphthonius.  He  mentions  that  it 
began  with  John  i.  i  —  "In  the  beginning  was  the  Word." 
(See  Assemani,  Biblioth.  Orient,  ii.  158  ff.)  Besides  Eph- 
raem, Aphraates,  an  earlier  Syrian  Father  (a.d.  337)  appears 
to  have  used  it  {Horn.  i.  p.  13  ed.  Wright) ;  and  in  the  Doc- 
trine of  Addai,  an  apocryphal  Syriac  work,  written  probably 
not  far  from  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  which  purports 
to  give  an  account  of  the  early  history  of  Christianity  at 
Edessa,  the  people  are  represented  as  coming  together  "  to 
the  prayers  of  the  service,  and  to  [the  reading  of]  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  New  of  the  Diatessaron."  *  The  Doc- 
trine of  Addai  does  not  name  the  author  of  the  Diatessaron 
thus  read ;  but  the  facts  already  mentioned  make  the  pre- 
sumption strong  that  it  was  Tatian's.  A  scholion  on  Cod. 
^2  of  the  Gospels  cites  "Tatian's  Gospel"  for  a  remarkable 
reading  of  Matt,  xxvii.  49  found  in  many  ancient  MSS. ;  and 

*In  Cureton's  Ancient  Syriac  Dacumenis  (hond.  1864)  the  text,  published  from  a  MS.  in 
the  British  Museum,  is  here  corrupt,  reading  Ditonron,  a  word  without  meaning ;  comp.  Pratten's 
Syriac  Documents  {i8ji),  p.  25,  note,  in  the  Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library,  vol.  xx.  Cureton 
conjectured  that  the  true  reading  was  Diatessaron  (see  his  note,  p.  158),  and  his  conjecture  is 
confirmed  by  the  St.  Petersburg  MS.  published  by  Dr.  George  Phillips,  T/ie  Doctrine  of  Addai, 
London,  1876;  see  his  note,  p.  34  f.  Cureton's  Syriac  text  (p.  15),  as  well  as  his  translation 
(p.  15),  reads  Ditonron,  not  Ditornon,  as  Lightfoot,  Pratten,  and  Phillips  erroneously  state, 
being  misled  by  a  misprint  in  Cureton's  note.  Phillips  gives  the  reading  correctly  in  the  note  to 
his  Syriac  text  (p.  36).  Moesinger,  in  the  work  described  below,  is  also  misled,  spelling  the  word 
Diathurnun  (Praef.  p.  iv).  The  difEerence  between  Ditonron  and  Diatessaron  in  the  Syriac  is 
very  slight,  affecting  only  a  single  letter. 


54 

it  is  also  cited  for  a  peculiar  reading  of  Luke  vii,  42.*  So 
far  the  evidence  is  clear,  consistent,  and  conclusive ;  but  on 
the  ground  of  a  confusion  between  Tatian's  Harmony  and 
that  of  Ammonius  on  the  part  of  a  Syrian  writer  of  the 
thirteenth  century  (Gregorius  Abulpharagius  or  Bar-He- 
brseus),  and  of  the  two  pc7'sons  by  a  still  later  writer,  Ebed- 
Jesu,  both  of  which  confusions  can  be  traced  to  a  misunder- 
standing of  the  language  of  Bar-Salibi,  and  for  other  reasons 
equally  weak,  f  the  fact  that  Tatian's  work  was  a  Harmony 
of  our  Four  Gospels  has  been  questioned  by  some  German 
critics,  and  of  course  by  StipeniaUiral  Religion.  But  the 
whole  subject  has  been  so  thoroughly  discussed  and  its  ob- 
scurities so  well  cleared  up  by  Bishop  Lightfoot,  in  an  article 
in  the  Contemporary  Review  for  May,  1877,  that  the  question 
may  be  regarded  as  settled.  %  Lightfoot's  view  is  confirmed 
by  the  recent  publication  of  Ephraem's  Commentary  on  the 

*See  Tischendorf ,  iV^.  r.  Gr.  ed.  8va,  on  Matt,  xxvii.  49,  and  Scholz,  iV.  T'.  Gr.,  vol.  i., 
p.  cxlix.,  and  p.  243,  note  x. 

tSuch  as  that  Victor  of  Capua  (a.d.  545)  says  that  it  was  called  Diapente  (i.e.,  "made  out  of 
five  ").  But  this  is  clearly  a  slip  of  the  pen  of  Victor  himself,  or  a  mistake  of  some  scribe ;  for,  as 
Hilgenfeld  {Einleit.  p.  79,  note)  and  Lightfoot  remark,  Victor  is  simply  reporting  Eusebius's 
account  of  it,  and  not  only  does  Eusebius  say  that  Tatian  called  it  the  Diatessaron,  but  Victor 
himself  has  just  described  it  as  "  unum  ex  gjuthior.'^  The  strange  mistake,  for  it  can  be  nothing 
else,  may  possibly  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  Diaiessaron  and  Diapettte  being  both 
musical  terms,  one  might  naturally  recall  the  other,  and  lead  to  an  unconscious  substitution  on  the 
part  of  some  absent-minded  copyist.  Under  no  circumstances  can  any  inference  about  the  com- 
position of  the  work  be  drawn  from  this  Diapente,  for  Victor  derives  his  information  from 
Eusebius,  and  not  only  do  all  the  Greek  MSS.  in  the  passage  referred  to  read  Z>/a/«jar^?«,  but 
this  reading  is  confirmed  by  the  very  ancient,  probably  contemporary,  Syriac  version  of  Eusebius, 
preserved  in  a  MS.  of  the  sixth  century,  and  by  the  Latin  version  of  Rufinus,  made  a  century  and 
a  half  before  Victor  wrote.  (See  Lightfoot,  p.  1 143.)  The  mistake  ascribed  to  the  Syriac  lexicog- 
rapher Bar-Bahlul  is  proved  to  be  due  to  an  interpolator.  '  (See  Lightfoot,  p.  1 139,  note.)  The 
statement  of  Epiphanius,  the  most  untrustworthy  and  blundering  of  the  Fathers,  that  "  it  is 
called  by  some  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews"  (//^r.  xlvi.  i),  if  it  had  any  foundation 
beyond  a  mere  guess  of  the  writer,  may  have  originated  from  the  omission  of  the  genealogies, 
which  were  omitted  also  in  one  form  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  (Epiph.  Hter. 
xxx.  13,  14).  The  supposition  that  it  was  that  Gospel  contradicts  all  our  information  about  the 
two  works  except  the  circumstance  just  mentioned;  and  that  it  \v2A  additions  from  that  Gospel 
is  a  conjecture  for  which  we  have  not  a  particle  of  evidence.  (See  Lightfoot,  p.  1 141 ;  Lipsius  in 
Smith  and  Wace's  Diet.  0/ Christian  Biog.  ii.  714.) 

X  To  Lightfoot's  article  I  am  much  indebted.  The  other  writers  who  treat  of  the  subject  most 
fully  are  Credner,  Beitriige  u.s.w.,  i.  437-451,  who  has  thrown  more  darkness  upon  it  than 
anybody  else;  Daniel,  Tatianus  der  Apologtt  (Halle,  1837),  pp.  87-1 11,  who  has  refuted 
Credner's  arguments;  Semisch,  Tatiani  Diatessaron,  Vratisl.  1856;  Hilgenfeld,  Einleit.  in  d. 
N.T.  (1875),  pp.  75-79;  Supernatural  Religion,  yo\.  ii.,  pp.  148-159,  7th  ed.  ;  and  E.  B. 
Nicholson,  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  (London,  1879),  p.  16  f.,  and  pp.  126-133,  who 
does  not  appear  to  have  seen  Lightfoot's  article,  but  exposes  independently  many  of  the  errors 
and  fallacies  of  Suptrnatural  Religion.    See  also  Norton,  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  iii.  292  ff. 


55 

Diatessaron,  to  which  I  have  already  had  occasion  to  refer.  * 
This  exists  only  in  an  Armenian  version  of  the  Syriac,  made, 
it  is  supposed,  in  the  fifth  century.  The  Armenian  text  was 
published  in  the  second  volume  of  the  collected  Works  of 
St.  Ephraem  in  Armenian,  printed  at  Venice  in  1836  (4  vols. 
8vo) ;  but  Aucher's  Latin  translation  of  the  Commentary, 
revised  and  edited  by  G.  Moesinger,  who  compared  it  with 
another  Armenian  manuscript,  first  appeared  at  Venice  in 
1876,  and  the  work  has  hitherto  been  almost  unnoticed  by 
scholars.!  It  should  be  observed  that  Ephraem's  commen- 
tary is  only  on  select  passages  of  the  Harmony,  unless  the 
work  which  has  come  down  to  us  is  merely  an  abridgment. 
But  there  seems  to  be  no  ground  for  questioning  the  gen- 
uineness of  the  work  ascribed  to  Ephraem ;  and  little  or  no 
ground  for  doubting  that  the  Harmony  on  which  he  is  com- 
menting is  Tatian's,  in  accordance  with  the  account  of 
Dionysius  Bar-Salibi.  %  It  agrees  with  what  we  know  of 
Tatian's  in  omitting  the  genealogies  and  in  beginning  with 
the  first  verse  of  the  Gospel  of  John.  Further,  the  character 
of  the  text,  so  far  as  we  can  judge  of  it  from  a  translation  of 
a  translation,  is  such  as  to  lend  confirmation  to  the  view  that 
it  is  Tatian's.  It  presents  some  very  ancient  various  read- 
ings which  accord  remarkably  with  those  of  Justin  Martyr 
and  other  early  writers,  and  with  the  Curetonian  Syriac 
where  it  differs  from  the  later  Peshito.  || 

*  See  Note  A,  no.  4. 

t  The  volume  is  entitled :  Evangelii  concordantis  Expositio  facta  a  Sancio  Ephraetno 
Doctore  Syro.  In  Latinutn  translata  a  R.  P.  Joanne  Baptista  A  ucher  Mechitarista  cuj'us 
Versionent  emendavit,  A  dnotationibus  illustravit  et  edidit  Dr.  Georgiui  Moesinger. 
Venetiis,  Libraria  PP.  Mechitaristarum  in  Monasterio  S.  Lazari.  1876.  8vo.  pp.  xii.,  292. 
Lipsius,  art.  Gospels,  Apocryphal,  in  Smith  and  Wace's  Did.  of  Christian  Biog.,  vol.  ii. 
(London,  18S0),  p.  713,  is  not  even  aware  that  the  Armenian  translation  has  been  published. 

%  See  Moesinger,  ubi  supra,  Prsf.  p.  ii.  ff. 

H  We  find,  for  example,  the  very  ancient  punctuation  or  construction  which  ends  the  sentence 
in  John  i.  3  with  vhi'it  iv,  "  not  even  one  thing,"  connecting  5  yyyovev  with  ver.  4.  (See 
Moesinger's  edition,  p.  5.)  This  accords  with  the  citation  of  the  passage  by  Tatian  (Orai.  ad 
Greec.  c.  19).  In  Matt.  L  25,  we  read  "sancte  (or  in  sanctitate)  habitabat  cum  ea"  (Moesinger, 
pp.  23,  25,  26);  so  the  Curetonian  Syriac.  In  Matt.  viii.  10 (p.  74),  it  reads,  " Non  in  aliqito'va. 
Israel  tantam  fidem  inveni,"  with  Cod.  Vaticanus  (B),  several  of  the  best  cursives,  the  MSS. 
ag'.kqof  the  Old  Latin,  the  Curetonian  Syriac,  .Sahidic,  Coptic,  and  /Ethiopic  versions,  the 
Harclean  Syriac  in  the  margin,  Augustine  once,  and  the  "Optts  Imperfectutn"  on  Matt.  In 
Matt.  xi.  27  (Moesinger,  pp.  117,  216),  it  agrees  with  Justin,  the  Clementine  Homilies,  and  the 
Gnostics  in  Irenxus,  in  the  transposition  of  the  clauses  relating  to  the  Father  and  the  Son.     (See 


56 

We  may  regard  it  then,  I  conceive,  as  an  established  fact 
that  Tatian's  Diatessaron  was  a  Harmony  of  our  four  Gospels. 
So  difficult  and  laborious  a  work  would  hardly  have  been  un- 
dertaken, except  to  meet  a  want  which  had  been  widely  felt. 
It  implies  that  the  four  books  used  were  recognized  by  those 
for  whom  it  was  intended  as  authoritative,  and  as  possessing 
equal  authority.  Can  we  then  believe  that  Tatian's  Harmony 
represented  a  different  set  of  books  from  the  "  Memoirs  called 
Gospels  "  of  his  master  Justin,  which  were  read  at  the  meet- 
ings for  public  worship  in  churches  all  over  the  Christian 
world  as  the  authentic  records  of  the  life  and  teaching  of 
Christ,  the  production  of  Apostles  and  their  companions  .'* 
Does  not  Tatian's  unquestionable  use  of  the  Gospel  of  John 
in  particular  confirm  the  strong  presumption  from  other  facts 
that  this  Gospel  was  included  in  the  "  Memoirs  "  used  by  his 
master  and  by  Christians  generally  twenty  years  before  .■' 

This  presumption  receives  further  confirmation  from  other 
testimonies  to  the  existence  and  use  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
between  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus. 

The  treatise  or  fragment  On  the  Resurrection,  which  Otto 
with  many  others  ascribes  to  Justin,  if  not  genuine,  probably 
belongs  to  this  period.  In  c.  i  we  read,  "  The  Logos  of  God, 
who  was  \or  became]  his  Son,  came  to  us  clothed  in  flesh, 
revealing  both  himself  and  the  Father,  giving  to  us  in  him- 
self the  resurrection  from  the  dead  and  the  eternal  life  which 
follows."  The  allusions  here  to  John  i.  i,  14;  xiv.  9;  xi.  25, 
26,  seem  unmistakable.  So  in  c.  9,  "  He  permitted  them  to 
handle  him,  and  showed  in  his  hands  the  marks  of  the  nails," 
we  have  a  reference  to  John  xx.  25,  27,  as  well  as  to  Luke 
xxiv.  39. 

Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis  {cir.  a.d.  165),  in  a  fragment  from 

Note  A,  under  no.  4.)  In  Matt.  xix.  17,  the  text  is  given  in  Ephraem's  commentary  in  different 
forms,  but  it  seems  to  be,  substantially,  "  Unus  tantum  est  bonus.  Pater  (pr  Deus  Pater)  qui  in 
CJelis"  (Moesinger,  pp.  169,  170,  173);  similarly,  Justin  Martyr  once  {Dial.  c.  loi),  the  Naassenes 
in  Hippolytus  (Adv.  Hter.  v.  7,  p.  102),  the  Marcosians  in  Irensus  (Har.  i.  20.  §2),  and  the 
Clementine  Homilies  (xviii.  i,  3);  see,  for  the  numerous  variations  of  reading  here,  Tischeiulorf's 
N.T.  Gr.  c&.  ?>v3i,  in  loc.  Notice  also  the  reading  of  John  vii.  8  ('W(i«  ascendo,"  Moesinger, 
p.  167);  John  iii.  13,  quoted  without  the  last  clause  of  text,  recept.  (pp.  187,  189,  comp.  168); 
John  X.  8  (ante  me,  p.  200) ;  Luke  xxii.  44  ("  et  factus  est  sudor  ejus  ut  guttae  sanguinis,"  p.  23S1 
comp.  Justin,  Dial.  c.  103). 


57 

his  work  on  the  Incarnation  preserved  by  Anastasius  Sinaita, 
speaks  of  Christ  as  "  giving  proof  to  us  of  his  deity  by  signs 
[wrought]  in  the  three  years  after  his  baptism,  and  of  his 
humanity  in  the  thirty  years  before  his  baptism."  *  This 
assignment  of  a  duration  of  three  years  to  his  ministry  must 
have  been  founded  on  the  Gospel  of  John,  which  mentions 
three  Passovers  (ii.  13;  vi.  4;  xi.  55)  besides  the  "feast  of 
the  Jews  "  referred  to  in  John  v,  i. 

Claudius  Apollinaris,  bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  Phrygia  {cir. 
A.D.  166),  in  a  treatise  on  the  Paschal  Festival,  refers  to  the 
apparent  difference  between  John  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
as  to  the  time  of  the  death  of  Jesus.  Apollinaris,  relying 
on  the  Gospel  of  John,  held  that  it  was  on  the  day  on  which 
the  paschal  lamb  was  killed,  the  14th  of  Nisan  ;  his  oppo- 
nents, appealing  to  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  maintained  that 
it  was  on  the  day  following.  Both  Gospels  were  evidently 
received  as  authoritative  by  both  parties. f  He  also  refers 
in  the  same  work  to  the  piercing  of  the  side  of  Jesus  and 
the  effusion  of  water  and  blood,  mentioned  only  by  John 
(xix.  34).J 

The  Epistle  of  the  Churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons  in  Gaul 
to  those  of  Asia  and  Phrygia,  giving  an  account  of  their  per- 
secutions (a.d.  177),  quotes  the  following  as  the  words  of  the 
Lord :  "  There  shall  come  a  time  in  which  whosoever  killeth 
you  shall  think  that  he  is  offering  a  religious  service  to  God," 
?MTpEiav  npoa^epeiv  t^  dec>.  The  expression  in  the  last  clause 
is  the  same  which  is  inadequately  rendered  in  the  common 
version  "doeth  God  service"  (John  xvi.  2).||  The  use  of  the 
word  ■n:apdia.T)-roq  a  little   before    in    the  Epistle,  "having  the 

•See  Anast.  Sinait.  Hodeg.  or  Vice  Dux,  ■c  13,  in  Migne, /Wro/.  Gr.  Ixxxix.  col.  229,  or 
Melito,  Fr^.  vi.  in  Otto,  Corp.  Apol.  Christ.,  vol.  ix.  (1872),  p.  416. 

\Chronicon  PaschaU,\o\.  i.,  pp.  13,  14,  ed.  Dindorf;  Apollinaris  in  Routh's  ^^//.  ja<rr«, 
ed.  alt.  (1846),  i.  160;  or  Otto,  Corp.  Apol.  Christ.,  ix.  486  f. 

Xlbid.  p.  14,  ed.  Dindorf;  Routh,  ibid.  p.  161;  Otto,  u6i  supra.  For  a  full  view  of  the 
evidence  of  Melito  and  Apollinaris,  and  of  the  considerations  which  give  it  weight,  see  Lightfoot's 
article,  "The  Later  School  of  St.  John,"  in  the  Contemporary  Review  for  February,  1876, 
xxvii.  471  £f. 

II  The  letter  is  preserved  in  large  part  by  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  cc.  1-4.  It  may  be  con- 
sulted conveniently  in  Routh,  Heli.  sacm,  i.  295  ff.,  ed.  alt.  For  the  quotation,  see  Epist.  C  4i 
Routh,  p.  300;  Euseb.  v.  i.  §  15. 


58 

Paraclete  within  him,"  also  suggests  the  Gospel  of  John; 
comp.  John  xiv.  i6,  17.* 

Athenagoras  the  Athenian  {cir.  a.d.  176),  in  his  Plea  for 
Christiajis  addressed  to  M.  Aurelius  and  Commodus,  speak- 
ing of  "  the  Logos  of  God  the  Father,"  says  that  "through 
him  all  things  were  made "  ((5<'  avroib  navTa  eyeve-o),  the  Father 
and  the  Son  being  one;  and  the  Son  being  in  the  Father, 
and  the  Father  in  the  Son  "  ;  language  which  seems  evidently 
founded  on  John  i.  3  ;   x.  30,  38;    xiv.  10,  11  ;   xvii.  21,  22.t 

Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch  a.d.  i 69-1 81,  in  his  work 
in  defence  of  Christianity  addressed  to  Autolycus  (a.d.  180), 
says,  "The  Holy  Scriptures  teach  us,  and  all  who  were 
moved  by  the  Spirit,  among  whom  John  says,  '  In  the  begin- 
ning was  the  word  [or  Logos],  and  the  Word  was  with  God.' " 
He  proceeds  to  quote  John  i.  3.  J 

The  Muratorian  Canon  (cir.  a.d.  170),  as  has  already  been 
mentioned,  ascribes  the  Gospel  to  the  Apostle  John,  and 
gives  an  account  of  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was 
written,  fabulous  doubtless  in  some  of  its  details,  but  having 
probably  a  basis  of  truth.  || 

Celsus,  the  celebrated  heathen  adversary  of  Christianity 
(a.d,  178,  Keim),  professedly  founds  his  statements  concern- 
ing the  history  of  Christ  on  "the  writings  of  his  disciples  ";** 
and  his  accounts  are  manifestly  based  on  our  four  Gospels, ff 

* Episi.  c.  3;  Routh,  p.  298;  Euseb.  v.  i.  §10.  In  the  same  section  we  have  other  expres- 
sions apparently  borrowed  from  John  xv.  13  and  i  John  iii.  16.  See,  further,  Lightfoot's  article, 
"The  Churches  of  Gaul,"  in  the  Contemp.  Reviev)  for  August,  1876,  xxvlii.  405  ff.  An  English 
translation  of  the  Fragments  of  M  elite  and  Apollinaris,  and  of  the  Epistle  of  the  Churches  of 
Vienne  and  Lyons,  will  be  found  appended  to  vol.  ii.  of  Lactantius,  in  vol.  xxii.  of  the  Ante- 
Nicene  Christian  Library. 

t  Suppl.  pro  Christ,  c.  10,  p.  46,  ed.  Otto. 

%Ad Aittol.  iL  22,  pp.  118-120,  ed.  Otto. 

n  See  on  this  subject  Lightfoot  in  the  Contemp.  Review  for  October,  1875,  xxvi.  835  ff.; 
Matthew  Arnold,  God  and  the  Bible,  p.  248  (Eng.  ed.) ;  and  Westcott,  "  Introd.  to  the  Gospel  of 
St.  John,"  in  The  Holy  Bible  .  .  .  with  . .  .  Commentary,  etc.,  ed.  by  F.  C.  Cook,  N.  T.,  vol.  ii. 

p.  XXXV. 

••Origen,  Cels.  ii.  13,  74;  comp.  32,  53.  He  quotes  these  writings  as  possessing  among 
Christians  unquestioned  authority :  "We  need,"  says  he,  "no  other  witness ;  for  you  fall  upon 
your  own  swords  "  (ii.  74). 

Tt  See  fully  in  Lardner,  Testimonies  0/ Ancient  Heathens,  c\\.  xviii.,  ff  or  As,  yil.  2io-2jS; 
Kirchhofer,  QueUensammlung  zur  Gesch.  des  neutest.  Canons  (1844),  pp.  330-349;  Keim, 
Celsu£  Wahres  Wort  (1873),  pp.  223-230.  Comp.  Norton,  Genuineness  of  tht  Gosptls,  L  143 
ff. ;  E.  A.  Abbott,  art.  Gospels,  in  the  Encyc.  Britannica,  gth  ed.,  x.  818. 


59 

though  he  does  not  name  their  authors.  He  refers  to  sev- 
eral circumstances  peculiar  to  the  narrative  of  John,  as  the 
blood  which  flowed  from  the  body  of  Jesus  at  his  crucifixion,* 
and  the  fact  that  Christ  "  after  his  death  arose,  and  showed 
the  marks  of  his  punishment,  and  how  his  hands  had  been 
pierced."  f  He  says  that  "some  relate  that  one,  and  some 
that  two  angels  came  to  the  sepulchre,  to  announce  that 
Jesus  was  risen."  J  Matthew  and  Mark  speak  of  but  one 
angel,  Luke  and  John  mention  two.  He  says  that  the  Jews 
"  challenged  Jesus  m  the  temple  to  produce  some  clear  proof 
that  he  was  the  Son  of  God."  ||  He  appears  also  to  allude  to 
the  cry  of  Jesus,  "  I  thirst,"  recorded  only  by  John.**  Re- 
ferring to  a  declaration  of  Jesus,  he  satirically  exclaims, 
"  O  Light  and  Truth  !  "  designations  of  Christ  characteristic 
of  John's  Gospel. ft  He  says  that  Jesus  "after  rising  from 
the  dead  showed  himself  secretly  to  one  woman  only,  and 
to  his  boon  companions."  J  J  Here  the  first  part  of  the 
statement  seems  to  refer  to  John's  account  of  the  appear- 
ance of  Christ  to  Mary  Magdalene. 

The  heretical  writings  of  this  period  clearly  recognize  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  Notwithstanding  several  apparent  quotations 
or  allusions,  it  was  formerly  maintained  that  the  author  of 
the  Clementine  Homilies  could  not  possibly  have  used  this 
Gospel,  it  being  in  such  opposition  to  his  opinions.  But 
since  the  discovery  of  the  Codex  Ottobonianus,  containing 
the  missing  portion  of  the  book  (first  published  by  Dressel 
in  his  edition  of  the  Homilies  in  1853),  there  has  been  a 
change  of  view.  That  portion  contains  so  clear  a  quotation 
of  John  ix.  1-3  {Horn.  xix.  22)  that  Hilgenfeld  has  handsomely 
retracted  his  denial  ;||||  and,  though  Scholten  and  Supernatu- 

*Origen,  Celt.  ii.  36,  also  i.  66;  comp.  John  xix.  34. 
tOrigen,  Celt.  ii.  55,  59;  John  xx.  25,  27. 
tOrigen,  Cels.  v.  52,  56;  John  xx.  12;  corap.  Luke  xxiv.  4,  23. 
nOrigen,  Cels.  i.  67;  John  ii.  18;  comp.  x.  23,  24.    (Matt.  xxL  23.) 
**Origen,  Cek.  ii.  37;  John  xix.  28. 

tt  Origen,  Cels.  ii.  49;  John  viii.  12 ;  ix.  5 ;  xii.  46;  xiv.  6. 

ttOrigen,  Cels.  it.  70;  John  xx.  14-18.    Compare,  however,  the  Addition  to  Mark,  xvi.  9. 

'i!^Einleit.  in  d.  N.T.,  p.  43  f.,  note;    comp.  Matthew  Arnold,  God  and  the  Bible,  p.  277. 

Volkmar  also  recognizes  the  use  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  here,  but  only  as  "an  unapostolic  n^pum" 


6o 

ral  Religion  still  resist  the  evidence,  there  can  be  little  doubt 
about  the  final  verdict  of  impartial  criticism.  Besides  this 
passage  and  that  about  the  new  birth,*  the  Gospel  of  John 
seems  to  be  used  twice  in  Horn.  iii.  52,  once  in  a  free  quota- 
tion :  "  I  am  the  gate  of  life ;  he  that  entereth  in  through 
me  entereth  into  life,  for  there  is  no  other  teaching  that 
can  save  "  (comp.  John  x.  9,  10)  ;  and  again,  "  My  sheep  hear 
my  voice"  (comp.  John  x.  27). 

More  important,  and  beyond  any  dispute,  is  the  evidence 
of  the  use  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  the  work  of  the  Apostle 
John  by  the  Gnostics  of  this  period.  Ptolemy,  the  disciple 
of  Valentinus,  in  his  Epistle  to  Flora,  preserved  by  Epipha- 
nius  {H(Er.  xxxiii.  3),  quotes  John  i.  3  as  what  "  the  Apostle 
says  "  ;  f  and,  in  the  exposition  of  the  Ptolemaeo-Valentinian 
system  given  by  Irenaeus,  a  long  passage  is  quoted  from 
Ptolemy  or  one  of  his  school  in  which  he  is  represented  as 
saying  that  "John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  supposes  a 
certain  Beginning,"  etc.,  citing  and  commenting  on  John  i. 
1-5,  14,  18,  in  support  of  the  Valentinian  doctrine  of  the 
Ogdoad.  %  The  Valentinians,  indeed,  as  we  are  told  by 
Irenaeus  elsewhere,  used  the  Gospel  of  John  most  abundantly 
{H(Br.  iii.  11.  §  7).  Heracleon,  another  disciple  of  Valen- 
tinus, wrote  a  commentary  on  it,  large  extracts  from  which 
are  preserved  by  Origen.  ||  The  book  commonly  cited  as 
Excerpta  Theodoti  or  Doctrina  Orientalis,  a  compilation  (with 
criticisms)  from  the  writings  of  Theodotus  and  other  Gnostics 
of  the  second  century,  ascribed  to  Clement  of  Alexandria  and 

(Ursprung  uns.  Evv.,  1866,  p.  62  f.,  134  f.)-  The  question  is  well  treated  by  Sanday,  Tke 
Gospels  in  ike  Second  Century,  pp.  293  ff.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  incident  of  "  the  man 
blind  from  his  birth  "  is  introduced  in  the  Homilies  (xix.  22)  as  it  is  in  the  Apostolical  Constitu- 
tions (v.  7.  §  17)  with  the  use  of  the  definite  article,  as  something  well-known  to  the  readers  of  the 
book.  How  does  this  happen,  if  the  writer  is  taking  it  from  "  an  unapostolic  «t?zwwi "  ?  Drum- 
mond  and  Sanday  have  properly  called  attention  to  this  use  of  the  article. 

'"Horn.  xi.  26;  see  pp.  29,  31. 

1 1  follow  the  text  of  Dindorf  in  his  edition  of  Epiphanius,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  199,  200,  who  reads 
rd  T£  ir&vra  lor  are  iravra  and  ■ye)ovivai  omUvior  yiyovev  owUv. 

t  Iren.  Hctr.  i.  8.  §  5.  The  old  Latin  version  of  Irenxus,  which  is  often  more  trustworthy 
than  the  Greek  as  preserved  by  Epiphanius,  ends  the  section  referred  to  with  the  words: 
Et  PloUm(gus  guident  ita.  For  the  Greek,  generally,  see  Epiphanius,  Hter.  xxxi.  27,  in 
Dindorf's  edition,  which  gives  the  best  text. 

II  These  are  collected  in  (irabe's  Spicilegium  SS,  Patrvtn,  etc.,  ii.  85-117,237,  ed.  alt. 
(1714),  and  in  Stieren's  Irenzus,  i.  938-971. 


6i 

commonly  printed  with  his  works,  contains  many  extracts 
from  one  or  more  writers  of  the  Valentinian  school,  in  which 
the  Gospel  of  John  is  quoted  and  commented  upon  as  the 
work  of  the  Apostle.  (See  particularly  cc.  6-8,  also  3,  9, 
13,  17-19,  26,  41,  45,  61,  62,  65,  73.) 

The  literature  of  the  third  quarter  of  the  second  century 
is  fragmentary,  but  we  have  seen  that  it  attests  the  use  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  in  the  most  widely  separated  regions  of 
the  Christian  world,  and  by  parties  diametrically  opposed  in 
sentiment.  The  fact  that  this  Gospel  was  used  by  those  to 
whose  opinions  it  was  or  seemed  to  be  adverse  —  by  the 
author  of  the  Clementine  Homilies,  by  Quartodecimans  and 
their  opponents,  and  especially  by  the  Gnostics,  who  were 
obliged  to  wrest  its  language  so  violently  to  accommodate  it 
to  their  systems  —  shows  that  to  have  won  such  a  reception  at 
that  time  it  must  have  come  down  from  an  earlier  period 
with  commanding  authority.  Its  use  in  Tatian's  Diatessaron 
also  makes  this  evident.  It  must  have  belonged  to  those 
"  Memoirs  "  to  which  Justin  appealed  fifteen  or  twenty  years 
before,  and  which  were  recognized  by  the  Christians  gen- 
erally of  his  day  as  the  authentic  sources  of  information 
respecting  the  life  and  teaching  of  Christ.  The  particular 
evidence  we  have  been  examining,  limited  as  it  is  by  the 
scantiness  of  the  literature,  strengthens  the  general  conclu- 
sion before  drawn  from  the  universal  reception  of  our  four 
Gospels  in  the  time  of  Irenaeus,  and  from  the  direct  indica- 
tions of  the  use  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  by  Justin.  The  evi- 
dence that  this  Gospel  was  one  of  his  "  Memoirs  "  is  thus 
cumulative,  and,  unless  it  is  countervailed  by  some  very 
strong  objections,  must  be  regarded  as  decisive.  Let  us 
then  consider  the  main  objections  which  have  been  urged 
against  this  conclusion. 

The  first  is  that,  according  to  Supernatural  Religion,  "The 
description  which  Justin  gives  of  the  manner  of  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  excludes  the  idea  that  he  knew  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
'  Brief  and  concise  were  the  sentences  uttered  by  him  :  for 
he  was  no  Sophist,  but  his  word  was  the  power  of  God.' 


62 

No  one  could  for  a  moment  assert  that  this  applies  to  the 
long  and  artificial  discourses  of  the  Fourth  Gospel."  * 

Here  we  may  observe,  in  the  first  place,  that  Justin's  Greek 
is  not  quite  accurately  translated,  f  The  word  rendered 
"  sentences "  is  without  the  article ;  and  Prof.  Drummond 
translates  the  clause  more  correctly,  "  Brief  and  concise  say- 
ings have  proceeded  from  him,"  remarking  that  "Justin  is 
describing  not  the  universal,  but  only  the  prevailing  and 
prominent  character  of  his  teaching."  J  And  it  is  not  a 
description  of  the  teaching  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  in  particu- 
lar, but  a  general  statement,  not  inconsistent  with  the  fact 
that  the  character  of  the  discourses  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
is  in  some  respects  peculiar.  But,  as  to  "  brief  and  concise 
sayings"  of  Jesus,  Professor  Drummond,  in  glancing  over 
the  first  thirteen  chapters  of  John,  finds  no  less  than  fifty- 
three  to  which  this  description  would  apply.  He  observes 
that  "the  book  contains  in  reality  very  little  connected 
argumentation ;  and  even  the  longest  discourses  consist 
rather  of  successive  pearls  of  thought  strung  on  a  thread 
of  association  than  of  consecutive  discussion  and  proof."  || 
But  it  may  be  greatly  doubted  whether  Justin  means  here 
by  I3paxeig  Myoi,  as  Taylcr  supposes,  simply  "  short,  aphoristic 
maxims."  The  reference  to  the  Sophists,  that  is,  rhetori- 
cians, leads  one  rather  to  suppose  that  Justin  is  contrasting 
the  ;ioyo/,  "discourses,"  of  Christ  in  general  with  the  long, 
artificial,  argumentative,  and  rhetorical  ?.6yoi  of  the  Sophists 
among  his  earlier  or  later  contemporaries,  such  as  Dion 
Chrysostomus,  Herodes  Atticus,  Polemo  and  Aristides, 
whom  Philostratus  describes  in  his  biographies.  As  for 
brevity,  the  discourses  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  are  generally 
short :    the   longest    continuous   discourse    there    recorded 

*Su^.  Rel.,  ii.  314;  similarly  J.  J.  Tayler,  An  Attempt  to  ascertain  the  Character  of  the 
Pimrth  Gospel  (1867),  p.  64;  Davidson,  Introd.  to  the  Study  of  the  N.T.  (1868),  ii.  386,  and 
many  others. 

^Apol.  i.  14:  fipaxeii  <^£  i^al  avvrofioi  izap'  avTOV  "koyoi  yeydvaaiv.  It  may  be 
thought,  perhaps,  that  oi  has  dropped  out  after  cvvTOfini^  which  might  easily  have  happened. 
But,  even  if  the  artide  had  been  used,  the  argument  would  be  worthless.  Such  general  proposi- 
tions are  seldom  to  be  taken  without  qualification. 

t  Theol.  Review,  July,  1877,  xiv.  330. 

^Ibid.  pp.  330,  331. 


would  hardly  occupy  five  minutes  in  the  reading.  The 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  as  given  by  Matthew  is  much  longer 
than  any  unbroken  discourse  in  John.  But  what  charac- 
terizes the  teaching  of  Christ  in  the  Gospels,  as  Justin  inti- 
mates, is  the  divine  authority  and  spiritual  power  with  which 
he  speaks ;  and  this,  is  not  less  striking  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
than  in  the  Synoptists.  (Comp.  Matt.  vii.  29 ;  Luke  iv.  32  ; 
John  vii.  26,  46.) 

A  more  plausible  objection  is  this.  If  Justin  knew  and 
used  the  Fourth  Gospel  at  all,  why  has  he  not  used  it  more } 
Why  has  he  never  appealed  to  it  in  proof  of  his  doctrine  of 
the  Logos  and  of  the  pre-existence  of  Christ }  He  has  ex- 
pressly quoted  but  one  saying  of  Christ  recorded  in  it,  and 
one  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  has  referred  to  but  one  incident 
peculiar  to  it,  unless  we  adopt  the  view  of  Professor  Drum- 
mond  respecting  his  reference  to  John  xix.  13.  (See  above, 
p.  50.)  His  account  of  Christ's  life  and  teaching  cor- 
responds substantially  with  that  given  in  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels, which  he  follows  (so  it  is  affirmed)  where  they  differ, 
or  seem  to  differ,  from  John.  Albrecht  Thoma,  in  an  article 
in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschrift,  comes  to  the  conclusion,  after  a 
minute  examination  of  the  subject,  that  Justin  "knows  and 
uses  almost  every  chapter  of  the  Logos-Gospel,  and  in  part 
very  fully."  But  such  considerations  as  I  have  mentioned 
convince  him,  notwithstanding,  that  he  did  not  regard  it  as 
apostolic,  or  historically  authentic.  He  finds  Justin's  rela- 
tion to  the  Apostle  Paul  very  similar.  Justin  shows  himself 
well  acquainted  with  Paul's  writings,  he  often  follows  him  in 
his  citations  from  the  Old  Testament  where  they  dijEfer  from 
the  Septuagint,  he  borrows  largely  his  thoughts  and  illustra- 
tions and  language,  but  never  quotes  him  expressly  and  by 
name ;  and  so  Mr.  Thoma  thinks  he  cannot  have  regarded 
him  as  an  Apostle.* 

This  argument  forgets  the  nature  of  Justin's  writings. 
Were  he  addressing  a  Christian  community  in  defence  of  his 

•See  the  artide,  "  Justins  literarisches  Verhaltniss  zu  Paulus  und  zura  Johannes-Evan- 
gebum,"  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschrift  fur  wissensch.  Theologie,  1875,  xviiL  383  £f.,  490  ff.  The 
quotation  in  the  text  is  from  p.  553. 


64 

doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  and  subordinate  deity  of  Christ 
in  opposition  to  the  Ebionites,  these  objections  would  be 
vaHd.  But  he  was  writing  for  unbeHevers.  In  his  Apolo- 
gies addressed  to  the  Emperor  and  Senate  and  people  of 
Rome,  he  cannot  quote  the  Christian  writings  in  direct  proof 
of  the  truth  of  Christian  doctrines,  and  makes  no  attempt  to 
do  so.  In  giving  the  account  which  he  does  of  the  teaching 
of  Christ,  he  draws  mainly  from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
and  in  his  sketch  of  the  Gospel  history  follows  mainly  the 
guidance  of  Matthew,  though  also  using  Luke,  and  in  two 
or  three  instances  Mark.  That  is  exactly  what  was  to  be 
expected.  Justin's  chief  argument  is  derived  from  the  fulfil- 
ment of  Old  Testament  prophecies,  and  in  this  he  natu- 
rally follows  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  which  is  distinguished 
from  the  others  by  its  reference  to  them.  Where  Matthew's 
citations  differ  from  the  Alexandrine  version  of  the  Old 
Testament,  Justin  often  appears  to  borrow  from  Matthew 
rather  than  from  the  Septuagint.*  The  discourses  of  Christ 
as  they  are  given  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  were  obviously 
much  better  fitted  for  his  purpose  of  presenting  to  heathens 
a  general  view  of  Christ's  teaching  than  those  in  the  Gospel 
of  John.  Similar  remarks  apply  to  the  Dialogue  with 
Trypho  the  Jew.  Here  Dr.  Davidson  thinks  it  strange  that 
Justin  should  not  have  quoted  the  prologue  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  and  such  a  passage  as  "Before  Abraham  was,  I  am," 
in  proof  of  Christ's  divinity  and  pre-existence. f  But  the 
Jew  with  whom  Justin  was  arguing  would  not  have  accepted 
an  assertion  of  John  or  a  declaration  of  Christ  as  a  proof  of 
its  truth.  So  in  the  xase  of  Paul's  writings.  Paul  was  not 
so  popular  among  the  Jews  that  his  name  would  recommend 
the  arguments  or  illustrations  which  Justin  borrows  from 
him  ;  still  less  could  Justin  quote  his  Epistles  in  proof  of 
doctrine  in  a  discussion  with  a  Jew,  or  in  a  defence  of  Chris- 
tianity addressed  to  heathens. 

♦See  Semisch,  Die  apost.  Denkwilrdigkeiten  u.s.w.,  pp.  1 10-120;  examples  are  also  given 
by  Norton,  Genuineness,  etc.,  vol.  i.  Addit.  Notes,  pp.  ccxx.,  ccxxii.,  cccxxxii,  f. 

I  Davidson's  I ntrod.  to  the  Study  of  the  N.  T.  (1868),  ii.  385.  Compare  Volkmar,  Ueber 
Justin  den  Mllrtyrer  u.s.w.  (ZUrich,  1853),  p.  20  f. ;  Ur sprung  uns.  Evang.  (1866),  p.  107  £. 
Thoma,  ubi  supra,  p.  556. 


65 

The  correctness  of  this  explanation  is  confirmed  by  an 
indisputable  fact.  Justin  certainly  believed  that  the  Apostle 
John  was  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse ;  Supernatural  Relig- 
ion (i.  295)  thinks  that  this  was  the  only  book  of  the  New 
Testament  which  he  regarded  as  "inspired";  Thoma  (p.  563, 
note  i)  even  supposes  that  it  was  read  in  the  churches  in 
Justin's  time  together  with  the  "Memoirs"  and  the  Prophets 
of  the  Old  Testament.  How,  then,  does  it  happen  that  he 
has  not  a  single  quotation  from  this  book,  which  calls  Christ 
"the  Word  [Logos]  of  God  "  (Rev.  xix.  13),  "the  beginning 
of  the  creation  of  God"  (iii.  14),  "the  first  and  the  last  and 
the  living  one "  (i.  17,  comp.  ii.  8),  "the  searcher  of  the  reins 
and  hearts  "  (ii.  23),  and,  apparently  (though  according  to 
Alford  and  Westcott  not  really),  "the  Alpha  and  the  Omega, 
the  beginning  and  the  end  "  (xxii.  13)  ^  In  speaking  of  the 
different  opinions  among  Christians  about  the  resurrection, 
Justin  once  refers  to  the  book  as  agreeing  with  the  prophets 
in  predicting  the  Millennium,  and  mentions  the  name  of  the 
author  {Dial.  c.  81 ;  the  passage  will  be  cited  below) ;  but,  as 
I  have  said,  he  nowhere  quotes  this  work,  which  he  regarded 
as  inspired,  apostolic,  prophetic,  though  it  contains  so  much 
which  might  seem  to  favor  his  view  of  the  person  of  Christ. 
Were  it  not  for  that  almost  accidental  reference  to  it,  it 
might  be  plausibly  argued  that  he  was  ignorant  of  its  exist- 
ence. In  one  place  in  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho  (c.  18), 
Justin  half  apologizes  for  subjoining  "some  brief  sayings" 
of  the  Saviour  to  the  words  of  the  Prophets,  on  the  ground 
that  Trypho  had  acknowledged  that  he  had  read  the  precepts 
of  Christ  "in  the  so-called  Gospel"  {Dial.  c.  10).  But  he 
does  not  introduce  them  there  as  arguments. 

It  should  be  observed,  further,  that  the  course  pursued  by 
Justin  in  abstaining  from  quoting  the  Gospels  in  proof  of 
doctrines,  and  in  not  mentioning  the  Evangelists  by  name, 
in  writings  addressed  to  unbelievers,  is  simply  that  which 
was  followed,  with  slight  exceptions,  by  a  long  line  of  Chris- 
tian Apologists  from  his  time  down  to  that  of  Eusebius.* 

*See  Norton,  Gen.  of  ike  Gospels,  i.  218  ff.;  Westcott,  Canon  of  the  N.T.,  p.  116  ff . ; 
E.  S.  Ffoulkes,  art.  Fathers,  in  Smith  and  Wace's  Diet.  0/  Christian  Biog.,  ii.  45^  f- 


66 

It  may  still  be  said  that  this  applies  only  to  quotations 
made  in  proof  of  doctrines.  It  may  be  asked,  and  there  is 
some  force  in  the  question,  Why  has  not  Justin  used  John 
as  he  has  used  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  as  an  authority  for  his- 
torical facts,  for  facts  which  he  supposed  to  be  predicted  in 
the  Old  Testament  ?  To  take  one  example  which  has  been 
urged  :  Justin  has  quoted  from  the  Old  Testament,  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  form  as  John  (differing  from  the  established 
text  of  the  Septuagint),  the  words,  "  They  shall  look  on  me 
whom  they  pierced  "  :  *  but  instead  of  referring  to  the  inci- 
dent which  led  John  to  quote  it, — the  thrusting  of  a  spear 
into  our  Saviour's  side  by  a  Roman  soldier, — he  seems  to 
apply  it  to  the  crucifixion  generally.  How  could  he  do  this, 
if  he  accepted  the  Gospel  of  John  ?  f 

This  case  presents  little  difficulty.  The  verbs  in  the 
quotation,  it  will  be  observed,  are  in  the  plural.  If  Justin 
regarded  the  prophecy  as  including  the  act  of  the  Roman 
soldier,  he  could  not  have  restricted  it  to  that :  he  must 
have  regarded  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament  as  refer- 
ring also  to  the  piercing  of  the  hands  and  the  feet  of  Jesus 
on  the  part  of  the  soldiers  who  nailed  him  to  the  cross.  It 
is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  he  should  quote  the  passage 
without  referring  to  the  particular  act  mentioned  by  John. 
He  applies  the  prophecy,  moreover,  to  the  Jews,  who  caused 
the  death  of  Jesus,  and  not  to  the  Roman  soldiers,  who  were 
the  immediate  agents  in  the  crucifixion. $ 

But  there  is  a  stronger  case  than  this.  Justin,  who  speaks 
of  Christ  as  ''the  passover"  or  paschal  lamb,  symbolizing 
the  deliverance  of  Christian  believers  from  death,  "as  the 
blood  of  the  passover  saved  those  who  were  in  Egypt "  {Dial. 
c.  Ill,  comp.  40),  has  not  noticed  the  fact  recorded  by  John 
alone,  that  the  legs  of  Christ  were  not  broken  by  the  Roman 
soldiers  at  the  crucifixion.  This  the  Evangelist  regards  as 
a  fulfilment  of  the  scripture,  "  A  bone  of  him  shall  not  be 

•Zech.  xii.  10;  John  xix.  37;  Justin,  Apol.  i.  52.     See  above,  p.  46. 

t  Thoraa,  pp.  542  f.,  556;  comp.  Engelhardt,  Das  ChrisUnt/ium  Justins  des  MUrtyrers 
(1878),  p.  350. 

X  Apol.  i.  52 ;  Dial.  cc.  14,  32,  64,  118;  comp.  Dial.  cc.  85,  93,  etc. ;  Acts  ii.  23  ;  x.  39. 


67 

broken  " ;  and  this  quotation  is  commonly  referred  to  the 
direction  respecting  the  paschal  lamb  (Ex.  xii.  46 ;  Num. 
ix.  12).  How,  it  may  be  asked,  could  Justin,  with  his  fond- 
ness for  types,  have  neglected  such  a  fulfilment  as  this,  when 
the  Evangelist  had  already  pointed  it  out  .-•  This  argument 
is  plausible,  and  has  some  weight.     Let  us  consider  it. 

In  the  first  place,  I  must  venture  to  doubt  whether  there 
is  any  reference  in  John  to  the  paschal  lamb  at  all.  The 
Evangelist  says  nothing  whatever  to  indicate  such  a  refer- 
ence, though  some  explanation  would  seem  to  be  needed  of 
the  transformation  of  a  precept  into  a  prediction.  The  lan- 
guage of  Ps.  xxxiv.  20  (Sept.  xxxiii.  21)  corresponds  more 
closely  with  the  citation ;  and,  considering  the  free  way  in 
which  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  are  applied  in  the 
New,  the  fact  that  in  the  connection  in  which  the  words 
stand  in  the  Psalm  protection  of  life  is  referred  to  does  not 
seem  a  very  serious  objection  to  the  supposition  that  the 
Evangelist  had  this  passage  in  mind.  He  may  well  have 
regarded  the  part  of  the  Psalm  which  he  quotes  as  fulfilled 
in  the  case  of  "Jesus  Christ  the  righteous  "  in  the  incident 
which  he  records,  and  the  preceding  verse  as  fulfilled  in  the 
resurrection.  And  some  eminent  scholars  take  this  view 
of  his  meaning ;  so,  e.g.,  Grotius,  Wetstein,  Bishop  Kidder, 
Hammond,  Whitby,  Briickner,  Baumlein,  Weiss  ;  *  others,  as 
Lenfant  and  Le  Clerc,  leave  the  matter  doubtful ;  and  some, 
as  Vitringa  and  Bengel,  suppose  the  Evangelist  to  have  had 
both  passages  in  mind.  But,  waiving  this  question,  I  would 
say,  once  for  all,  that  very  little  importance  is  to  be  attached 
to  this  sort  of  a  priori  reasoning.  We  may  be  surprised  that 
Justin  should  not  have  been  led  by  the  Fourth  Gospel  to 
find  here  a  fulfilment  of  prophecy  of  some  sort,  and  to  use 
it  in  his  argument ;  but  a  hundred  cases  equally  surprising 
might  be  cited  of  the  neglect  of  a  writer  to  use  an  argument 
or  to  recognize  a  fact  which  we  should  have  confidently  ex- 
pected that  he  would  use  or  recognize.  To  take  the  first 
that  lies  at  hand.     I  have  before  me  the  work  of  Dr.  Sanday, 

*Bibl.  Theol.  des  N.T.,  36  Aufl.  (1880),  p.  638;  comp.  his  Der  Johanmische  Lehrbegriff 
(i86a),  p.  114,  note,     SoR.  H.  Hutton,  Essays,  Theol.  and  Literary,  2d  ed.  (1880),  i.  195. 


6^ 

The  Gospels  in  the  Second  Century,  a  learned,  elaborate,  and 
valuable  treatise  in  reply  to  Supernatural  Religion.  He  ad- 
duces from  all  sources  the  evidence  of  the  use  of  the  Gospels 
by  writers  who  flourished  in  the  period  from  Clement  of 
Rome  to  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Tertullian,  including 
those  whose  references  to  the  Gospel  are  very  slight  and 
doubtful,  or  of  whom  mere  fragments  remain.  Appended 
to  the  work  is  a  chronological  and  analytical  table  of  these 
authors.  But,  on  looking  it  over,  we  find  no  mention  of 
Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch  a.d.  169-18  i  ;  and  Dr.  Sanday 
has  nowhere  presented  the  testimony  of  this  writer,  though 
we  have  from  him  an  elaborate  "Apology"  or  defence  of 
Christianity  in  three  books,  in  which  he  quotes  several  pas- 
sages from  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  with  the  introduction, 
"  The  evangelic  voice  teaches  "  so  and  so,  or  "  the  Gospel 
says,"  *  and  though,  as  we  have  seen,  he  quotes  the  Gospel 
of  John  (ch.  i.  i,  3),  naming  the  Evangelist,  and  describing 
him  as  one  moved  by  the  Spirit  of  God  (see  above,  p.  58). 
He  is  in  fact  the  earliest  writer  who  does  thus  expressly 
quote  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  the  work  of  John.  Now  sup- 
pose Dr.  Sanday  was  a  Father  of  the  third  or  fourth  century 
who  had  composed  a  treatise  with  the  purpose  of  collecting 
the  evidences  of  the  use  of  the  Gospels  by  early  Christian 
writers.  What  would  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion 
say  to  the  facts  in  this  case.-*  Would  he  not  argue  that 
Sandaeus  could  not  possibly  have  been  acquainted  with  this 
work  of  Theophilus,  and  that  the  pretended  "Apology  "  was 
probably  spurious }  And,  if  he  found  in  Sandasus  (p.  303) 
a  single  apparent  allusion  to  that  writer,  would  he  not  main- 
tain that  this  must  be  an  interpolation  }  —  Or  to  take  another 
example.  Sandaeus  is  examining  the  question  about  Justin 
Martyr's  use  of  the  Gospels,  and  observes  that  "he  says 
emphatically  that  all  the  children  {iravraq  airiuq  rovq  -KaiSaq) 
in  Bethlehem  were  slain,  without  mentioning  the  limitation 
of  age  given  in  St.  Matthew"  (p.  106;  comp.  Justin,  Dial. 
c.  78).     Now  in  our  present  texts  of  Justin  there  is  another 

*  Ad  Autol,  lib.  uL  cc.  13,  14,  ed.  Otto;  comp.  Matt.  v.  28,  44,  46;  vi.  3. 


69 

reference  to  the  slaughter  of  the  innocents,  in  which  Herod 
is  represented  as  "  destroying  all  the  children  born  in  Beth- 
lehem at  that  time."  *  But  here  Supernatural  Religion  might 
argue,  It  is  certain  that  this  qualifying  phrase  could  not  have 
been  in  the  copy  used  by  Sandaeus,  who  takes  no  notice  of 
the  passage,  though  his  aim  is  to  meet  the  objections  to  the 
genuineness  of  our  Gospels.  Is  it  not  clear  that  the  words 
were  interpolated  by  some  one  who  wished  to  bring  Justin 
into  harmony  with  Matthew  ?  Would  Justin  be  so  incon- 
sistent with  himself  as  that  addition  would  make  him  ? 

A  multitude  of  questions  may  be  asked,  to  which  no  par- 
ticular answer  can  be  given,  in  reference  to  the  use  which 
Justin  and  writers  in  all  ages  have  made  of  our  Gospels. 
We  cannot  say  why  he  has  quoted  this  saying  of  Jesus  and 
not  that,  or  referred  to  this  incident  in  the  history  and  not 
that ;  why,  for  example,  in  his  account  of  Christ's  teaching 
in  his  First  Apology,  he  makes  no  allusion  to  any  of  the 
parables  which  form  so  remarkable  a  feature  of  it,  and  quotes 
from  them  in  but  one  place  in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho 
{Dial.  c.  125).  We  can  only  say  that  he  had  to  stop  some- 
where ;  t  that  he  has  used  the  Gospels  much  more  freely 
than  any  other  of  the  many  Christian  Apologists  whose 
writings  have  come  down  to  us  from  his  day  to  that  of 
Lactantius  and  Eusebius ;  that  his  selection  of  the  sayings 
of  Christ  seems  on  the  whole  judicious  and  natural,  though 
many  pearls  of  great  price  are  missing ;  that  the  historical 
incidents  by  which  he  supports  his  special  argument  from 
the  fulfilment  of  prophecy  are  for  the  most  part  what  might 
be  expected  ;  and  that  it  was  natural  that  in  general  he 
should  follow  the  Synoptic  Gospels  rather  than  that  of 
John.J  But  one  needs  only  to  try  experiments  on  partic- 
ular works  by  almost  any  writer  to  find  that  great  caution 
is  required  in  drawing  inferences  from  what  he  has  not  done. 

*Dial.  c  103 :  aveTJivToq  ndvrac  rovg  hv  Hrfileefi  e  ke  ivov  tov  Katpov 
■yewT/devrag  Traldag. 

tComp.  A/ol.  i.  5j:  "Here  we  conclude,  though  we  have  many  other  prophecies  to 
jntjduce." 

tSee  on  this  point  Meyer,  Komm.  Hber  d.  Ev.  Jok.,  s*  Aufl.  (1869).  p.  8  f.,  note  (Eng. 
trans.,  p.  8  f.,  note  3);  comp.  Weizsacker,  Untersitchungen  ilSer  d.  evang.  GeschickU,  p.  2*9. 


70 

As  to  the  case  before  us,  Justin  may  not  have  thought  of 
the  incident  peculiar  to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  or  he  may  have 
considered,  and  very  reasonably  too,  that  an  argument  for 
the  typical  character  of  the  paschal  lamb  founded  on  the 
direction  given  in  the  Pentateuch  about  the  bones,  or  an 
argument  assuming  the  Messianic  reference  of  the  passage 
in  the  Psalms,  was  not  well  adapted  to  convince  unbelievers. 
Perhaps  he  had  urged  this  argument  in  the  actual  dialogue 
with  Trypho,  and  had  encountered  objections  to  its  validity 
which  he  did  not  find  it  easy  to  answer.  This  may  seem 
more  probable  than  the  supposition  of  forgetfulness.  But 
will  you  say  that  such  a  failure  of  memory  as  has  been  sug- 
gested is  incredible  .-'  Let  us  compare  a  case.  One  of  the 
most  distinguished  scholars  of  this  country,  in  an  article 
published  in  the  American  Biblical  Repository,  remarks,  in 
the  course  of  an  elaborate  argument :  — 

The  particulars  inserted  or  omitted  by  different  Evangelists  vary  ex- 
ceedingly from  each  other,  some  inserting  what  others  omit,  and  some 
narrating  at  length  what  others  briefly  touch.  E.g.,  compare  the  history 
of  the  temptation  by  Mark,  and  even  by  Matthew  and  Luke  ;  and  where 
is  the  history  of  the  transfiguration  to  be  found,  except  in  Matthew .''  * 

Could  anything  be  a  priori  more  incredible  than  that  an 
eminent  Biblical  scholar,  who  when  this  was  written  had  held 
the  office  of  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  the  Andover 
Theological  Seminary  for  nearly  thirty  years,  should  have 
forgotten  that  both  Mark  and  Luke  have  given  full  accounts 
of  the  transfiguration,  the  latter  especially  mentioning  a  num- 
ber of  important  particulars  not  found  in  Matthew.''!  If 
Professor  Stuart  was  occasionally  guilty  of  oversights,  —  as 
who  is  not  t  —  he  certainly  had  a  clearer  head  and  a  better 
memory  than  Justin  Martyr,  who  in  quoting  and  referring  to 
the  Old  Testament  makes  not  a  few  extraordinary  mistakes.  J 

I  admit  that  some  weight  should  be  allowed  to  the  argu- 

''  American  BiMical Re^sitory,  October,  1838,  xii.  341. 

t  Compare  Mark  ix.  2-8  and  Luke  ix.  28-36  with  Matt.  xvii.  1-8. 

tSee  the  references  already  given,  p.  49,  note*;  also  Some  Account  0/  the  Writings 
mid  OpinioTis  0/  Justin  Martyr,  by  John  [Kaye],  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  3d  ed.  (1853),  pp.  139  f. 
14S;  comp.  p.  139  f. 


71 

ment  we  have  been  examining,  so  far  as  reference  to  the 
history  in  the  Gospel  of  John  is  concerned  ;  but  it  does  not 
seem  to  me  that  much  importance  should  be  attached  to  it. 
The  tradition  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  represents  without 
doubt  the  substance  of  the  apostolic  preaching ;  it  was 
earlier  committed  to  writing  than  that  contained  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel ;  the  incidents  of  the  threefold  narrative  were 
more  familiar ;  and  the  discourses,  especially,  as  has  already 
been  remarked,  were  far  better  fitted  for  illustrating  the 
general  character  of  Christ's  teaching  than  those  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  It  would  have  been  very  strange,  there- 
fore, if  in  such  works  as  those  of  Justin  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels had  not  been  mainly  used. 

Engelhardt,  the  most  recent  writer  on  Justin,  is  impressed 
by  the  facts  which  Thoma  presents  respecting  Justin's  rela- 
tion to  John,  but  comes  to  a  different  conclusion.  He  thinks 
Justin  could  never  have  made  the  use  of  John's  Gospel  which 
he  has  done,  if  he  had  not  regarded  it  as  genuine.  It  pur- 
ports to  be  a  work  of  the  beloved  disciple.  The  conjecture 
that  by  "  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved "  Andrew  was  in- 
tended (Liitzelberger),  or  Nathanael  (Spaeth),  or  a  person- 
ified ideal  conception  (Scholten),  was  reserved  for  the 
sagacity  of  critics  of  the  nineteenth  century  :  there  is  no 
trace  that  in  Christian  antiquity  this  title  ever  suggested 
any  one  but  John.  The  Gospel  must  have  been  received  as 
his  work,  or  rejected  as  fictitious.  Engelhardt  believes  that 
Justin  received  it,  and  included  it  in  his  '*  Memoirs  "  ;  but  he 
conjectures  that  with  it  there  was  commonly  read  in  the 
churches  and  used  by  Justin  a  Harmony  of  the  first  three 
Gospels,  or  at  least  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  while  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  not  yet  incorporated  into  the  Harmony,  stood  in  the 
background.*  I  do  not  feel  the  need  of  this  hypothesis ; 
but  it  may  deserve  consideration. 

It  is  objected  further  that  Justin's  statements  repeatedly 
contradict  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  that  he  cannot  therefore 
have  regarded  it  as  apostolic  or  authentic.  For  example, 
he  follows  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  so  Hilgenfeld  and  David- 

*See  Engelhardt,  Das  Christenthum  Justins  cUs  MUriyrers,  pp.  345-352. 


72 

son  and  Supernatural  Religion  affirm,  in  placing,  in  opposi- 
tion to  John,  the  death  of  Christ  on  the  15th  of  Nisan,  the 
day  after  the  paschal  lamb  was  killed. 

The  argument  that  Justin  cannot  have  accepted  the  Gospel 
of  John  because  he  has  followed  the  Synoptists  in  respect  to 
the  day  of  Christ's  death  hardly  needs  an  answer.  If  the 
discrepancy  referred  to,  whether  real  or  not,  did  not  prevent 
the  whole  Christian  world  from  accepting  John  and  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  alike  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second 
century,  it  need  not  have  hindered  Justin  from  doing  so  at 
an  earlier  date.  But  it  is  far  from  certain  that  Hilgenfeld 
and  Davidson  have  correctly  interpreted  the  language  of 
Justin  :  "  It  is  written  that  you  seized  him  on  the  day  of  the 
passover,  and  in  like  manner  crucified  him  at  \or  during] 
the  passover  (ev  ru  Traaja)."*  Meyer  understands  this  as  plac- 
ing the  death  of  Jesus  on  the  day  of  the  passover ;  f  Otto 
in  an  elaborate  note  on  the  passage  in  his  iJiird  edition  of 
Justin's  Works  maintains  the  same  view ;  %  Thoma  regards 
the  language  as  ambiguous.  ||  I  will  not  undertake  to  pro- 
nounce an  opinion  upon  so  difficult  a  question,  as  the  objec- 
tion is  futile  on  any  supposition. 

Again,  Supernatural  Religion  asserts  that  "  Justin  contra- 
dicts the  Fourth  Gospel,  in  limiting  the  work  of  Jesus  to  one 
year."  {S.  R.  ii.  313.)  Dr.  Davidson  makes  the  same  state- 
ment ;  **  but  neither  he  nor  vS.  R.  adduces  any  proof  of  it. 
I  know  of  no  passage  in  Justin  which  affirms  or  implies  this 
limitation.  But,  if  such  a  passage  should  be  found,  the  argu- 
ment against  Justin's  reception  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  would 

*Dial.  cm.  See  Hilgenfeld,  Der  Paschastreit  der  alien  Kirche  (i86o),  pp.  205-209; 
Davidson,  Introd.  to  the  Study  of  the  N.T.  (1868),  ii.  384;  Sup.  Rel.,  ii.  313;  comp.  Wieseler, 
Beitr&ge  (1869),  p.  240.  —  Note  here  the  use  of  yfypairrni. 

^ Kontment.  ilb.  d.  Ev.  des  Joh.,  5*  Aufl.  p.  24  f.  (Eng.  trans,  i.  24  f.)  Steitz,  who  formerly 
agreed  with  Hilgenfeld,  after\vards  adopted  the  view  of  Meyer;  see  the  art.  Pascha  in  Herzog's 
Real-Encyk.  f.  Prot.  u.  Kirche,  xi.  151,  note  *. 

Xlvstini .  .  .  Martyr  ii  Opera,  torn.  i.  pars  ii.,  ed.  ten.  {1877),  p.  395  f.  Otto  cites /?ja/. 
c.  99,  where  the  agony  in  Gethsemane  is  referred  to  as  taking  place  "  on  the  day  on  which  Jesus 
was  to  be  crucified,"  as  showing  that  Justin  followed  the  Jewish  reckoning  of  the  day  from 
sunset  to  sunset.  Davidson  takes  no  notice  of  this.  If  Meyer  and  Otto  are  right,  we  have  here 
a  strong  argument  for  Justin's  use  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

II  Ubi  supra,  p.  535  f. 

1*  Introd.  to  tht  Study  of  th4  N.  T.,  ii.  387. 


73 

be  worthless.  The  opinion  that  Christ's  ministry  lasted  but 
one  year,  or  little  more,  was  held  by  many  in  the  early  Church 
who  received  the  Gospel  of  John  without  question.  It  was 
maintained  by  the  Basilidians,  the  Valentinians,  and  the 
author  of  the  Clementine  Homilies,  by  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria, Tertullian,  Origen,  Julius  Africanus,  Pseudo-Cyprian, 
Archelaus,  Lactantius,  Ephraem  Syrus  apparently,  Philas- 
trius,  Gaudentius,  Q.  Julius  Hilarianus,  Augustine  apparently, 
Evagrius  the  presbyter,  and  others  among  the  Fathers,  and 
has  been  held  by  modern  scholars,  as  Bentley,  Mann,  Priestley 
{Harmony),  Lant  Carpenter  {Harmony),  and  Henry  Browne 
{Ordo  ScBclonim)*  The  Fathers  were  much  influenced  by 
their  interpretation  of  Isa.  Ixi,  2,  —  "to  preach  the  acceptable 
year  of  the  Lord,"  —  quoted  in  Luke  iv.  19.  It  is  true  that 
John  vi.  4  is  against  this  view  ;  but  its  defenders  find  means, 
satisfactory  to  themselves,  of  getting  over  the  difficulty. 

Other  objections  urged  by  Dr.  Davidson  and  Supernatural 
Religion  seem  to  me  too  weak  to  need  an  answer.  I  will, 
however,  notice  one  which  is  brought  forward  with  great 
confidence  by  Thoma,  who  says  "  Justin  directly  contradicts 
the  Fourth  Gospel"  (p.  556),  and  after  him  by  F.  C.  J.  van 
Goens,  who  introduces  it  with  the  words  enfin  et  surtout.\ 

♦The  Basilidians,  see  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  21,  p.  408. —  Valentinians,  see  Iren.  Har.  i.  3. 
(al.  5),  §3 ;  ii.  20.  (al.  36),  §  i ;  22.  (al.  38-40),  §§  1-6. — Clem.  Horn.  xvii.  19. —  Clem.  Alex.  Strom. 
L  21,  p.  407;  vi.  II,  p.  783, 1.  40;  comp.  V.  6,  p.  668;  vii.  17,  p.  898. — Tertnll.  Adv.  Jud.  c  8; 
Marc.  i.  15  (but  here  are  different  readings). — Origen,  De  Princip.  iv.  5,  Opp.  i.  160;  In  Levit. 
Ho-m.  ix.  c.  s,  Opp.  ii.  239;  In  Luc.  Hotn.  xxxii.,  Opp.  iii.  970;  contra,  In  Matt.  Comm.  Ser., 
c  40,  Opp.  iii.  859,  "fere  tres  annos";  comp.  Ce^s.  ii.  12,  Opp.  i.  397,  oi'de:  rpia  Irrj. — Jul. 
African!  Chron.  frag.  1.  ap.  Routh,  Rell.  Sacra,  ii.  301  f.,  ed.  alt. —  Pseudo-Cyprian,  De  Pascka 
Comp.  (,A.D.  243),  c.  22. —  Archelai  et  Manetis  Disp.,c.  34. — Lactant.  Inst.  iv.  10.  (De  Morte 
Persec.  c  2.) — Ephraem,  Serm.  xiii.  in  Nat.  Dom.,  Opp.  Syr.  ii.  432. —  Philastr.  Hter.  106. — 
Gaudent  Serm.m.,  Migne,  Patrol.  Lai.  xx.  S65. —  Hilarianus,  Z>tf  Mundi  Dur.  (a.d.  397) 
c.  16;  De  Die  Pcuchtg,  c.  15;  Migne,  xiii.  1104,  11 14,  or  Gallandi,  Bibl.  Pair.  viii.  238,  748. — 
Augustine,  De  Civ.  Dei,  xviii.  54,  Opp.  vii.  866 ;  A  d  Hesych.  Epist.  199  (al.  80),  §  20,  Opp. 
ii.  1122  ;  contra,  De  Doct.  Christ,  ii.  42  (al.  28),  Opp.  iii.  66. —  Evagrius  presbyter (c/r.  a.d.  423), 
Alterc.  inter  Theopk.  Christ,  et  Sim.  Jud.,  Migne  xx.  1176,  or  Gallandi,  ix.  254. —  So  also  the 
author  of  the  treatise  De  Promissis  et  Prcedictionibus  Z>*/ (published  with  the  works  of  Prosper 
Aquitanus),  pars  i.  c.  7 ;  pars  v.  c.  a  ;  Migne,  IL  739  c,  855  b. —  Browne,  Ordo  Saclorum  (Cor- 
rections and  Additions),  also  cites  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  In  Isa.  xxxii.  10,  Opp.  ii.  446  d  e,  but 
this  rests  on  a  false  inference;  f^t,  contra,  Cyril,  In  Isa.  xxix.  i,  Opp.  ii.  408b.  Besides  the 
works  of  Nicholas  Mann,  De  veris  Annis  Jesu  Christi  natali et  emortuali,  Lond.  1752,  p.  158 
S.,  Greswell,  Dissertations,  etc.,  i.  438  ff.,  2d  ed.  (1837),  and  Henry  Browne,  Ordo  Saclorum, 
Lond.  1844,  p.  80  ff.one  may  consult  especially  F.  X.  Patritius  {i.e.  VaXnv),  De  Evan^eliis 
(Friburg.  Brisgov.  1853),  lib.  iii.,  diss,  xix.,  p.  171  ff. 

t  Revue  de  ihiologie  et  de  philosophie,  Lausanne,  1878,  xi.  92  £. 


74 

Justin  speaks  of  Christ  as  "keeping  silence  and  refusing 
any  longer  to  make  any  answer  to  any  one  before  Pilate,  as 
has  been  declared  in  the  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles  "  {Dial. 
c.  102).  M.  van  Goens  remarks,  "  No  one  who  had  ever 
read  the  Fourth  Gospel  could  speak  in  this  way."  What 
does  M.  van  Goens  think  of  Tertullian,  who  says,*  "Velut 
agnus  coram  tondente  se  sine  voce,  sic  non  aperuit  os  suum. 
Hie  enim  Pilato  interrogante  nihil  locutus  est "  f  If  Justin 
had  even  said  that  Christ  made  no  answer  when  Pilate  ques- 
tioned him,  this  would  be  sufficiently  explained  by  John 
xix,  9,  to  which  Tertullian  perhaps  refers.  But  the  expres- 
sions "no  longer"  and  ^'before  Pilate"  lead  rather  to  the 
supposition  that  Justin  refers  to  Matt,  xxvii.  11-14  and 
Mark  xv.  2-5  (ovKhL  ohSev  aTVEKpidv,  "  he  no  longer  made  any 
answer"),  which  certainly  there  is  nothing  in  John  to  con- 
tradict. 

Finally,  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  urges,  gener- 
ally, that  in  citing  the  Old  Testament  Justin,  according  to 
Semisch's  count,  refers  to  the  author  by  name  or  by  book 
one  hundred  and  ninety-seven  times,  and  omits  to  do  this 
only  one  hundred  and  seventeen  times.  On  the  other  hand, 
in  referring  to  the  words  of  Christ  or  the  facts  of  Christian 
history  for  which  he  relied  on  the  "  Memoirs,"  he  never  cites 
the  book  {S.  R.  regards  the  "  Memoirs  "  as  one  book)  by  the 
name  of  the  author,  except  in  a  single  instance,  where  he 
refers  to  "Peter's  Memoirs"  {Dial.  c.  106). f  "The  infer- 
ence," he  says,  "must  not  only  be  that  he  attached  small 
importance  to  the  Memoirs,  but  was  actually  ignorant  of  the 
author's  name  "  {S.  R.  i.  297).  That  Justin  attached  small 
importance  to  the  "  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles  "  on  which  he 
professedly  relied  for  the  teaching  and  life  of  Christ,  and 
this,  as  5.  R.  contends,  to  the  exclusion  of  oral  tradition 
(5.  R.  i.  298),  is  an  "  inference "  and  a  proposition  which 
would  surprise  us  in  almost  any  other  writer.  The  infer- 
ence, moreover,  that  Justin  "was  actually  ignorant  of  the 
author's  name,"  when  in  one  instance,  according  to  S.  R., 

*Adv.  Jud.  c.  13,  0pp.  ii.  737,  ed.  CEhler. 
t  See  above,  p.  20  £. 


75 

"he  indicates  Peter"  as  the  author  {S.  R.  i.  285),  and  when, 
as  ^.  R.  maintains,  "the  Gospel  according  to  Peter,"  or  "the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews"  (which  he  represents  as 
substantially  the  same  work),  was  in  all  probability  the  source 
from  which  the  numerous  quotations  in  his  works  differing 
from  our  Gospels  are  taken,*  is  another  specimen  of  singular 
logic.  So  much  for  generalities.  But  a  particular  objection 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  Gospel  of  John  was  one  of  Justin's 
"Memoirs  "  is  founded  on  the  fact  that  he  has  never  quoted 
or  referred  to  it  under  the  name  of  the  author,  though  he  has 
named  the  Apostle  John  as  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse. 
{S.  R.  i.  298.)  Great  stress  is  laid  on  this  contrast  by  many 
writers. 

Let  us  see  to  what  these  objections  amount.  In  the  first 
place,  the  way  in  which  Justin  has  mentioned  John  as  the 
author  of  the  Apocalypse  is  in  itself  enough  to  explain  why 
he  should  not  have  named  him  in  citing  the  "Memoirs." 
In  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  after  having  quoted  prophecies 
of  the  Old  Testament  in  proof  of  his  doctrine  of  the  Millen- 
nium, —  a  doctrine  in  which  he  confesses  some  Christians 
did  not  agree  with  him,  —  he  wishes  to  state  that  his  belief 
is  supported  by  a  Christian  writing  which  he  regards  as  in- 
spired and  prophetic.  He  accordingly  refers  to  the  work 
as  follows  :  "  And  afterwards  also  a  certain  man  among  us, 
whose  name  was  John,  one  of  the  Apostles  of  Christ,  in  a 
revelation  made  by  him  prophesied  that  the  believers  in  our 
Christ  should  spend  a  thousand  years  in  Jerusalem,"  etc. 
{Dial.  c.  81.)  The  Apostle  John  was  certainly  as  well  known 
outside  of  the  Christian  body  as  any  other  of  the  Evangelists ; 
but  we  see  that  he  is  here  introduced  to  Trypho  as  a  stranger. 
Still  more  would  he  and  the  other  Evangelists  be  strangers 
to  the  Roman  Emperor  and  Senate,  to  whom  the  Apologies 
were  addressed.  That  Justin  under  such  circumstances 
should  quote  the  Evangelists  by  name,  assigning  this  saying 
or  incident  to  "  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew,"  that  to 
"Luke,"  and  the  other  to  "the  Gospel  according  to  John," 

* Sufematural  Religion,  i.  321;  comp.  pp.  312,  323,  332,  398,  416,  418-427;  ii.  3«'f  7th  ed. 


ye 

as  if  he  were  addressing  a  Christian  community  familiar  with 
the  books,  would  have  been  preposterous.  Justin  has  de- 
scribed the  books  in  his  First  Apology  as  Memoirs  of  Christ, 
resting  on  the  authority  of  the  Apostles,  and  received  by 
the  Christians  of  his  time  as  authentic  records.  That  was 
all  that  his  purpose  required :  the  names  of  four  unknown 
persons  would  have  added  no  weight  to  his  citations.  In 
the  Dialogue,  he  is  even  more  specific  in  his  description  of 
the  "  Memoirs  "  than  in  the  Apology.  But  to  suppose  that 
he  would  quote  them  as  he  quotes  the  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament with  which  Trypho  was  familiar  is  to  ignore  all  the 
proprieties  and  congruities  of  the  case. 

This  view  is  confirmed  and  the  whole  argument  of  Super- 
natural Religion  is  nullified  by  the  fact  that  the  general 
practice  of  Christian  Apologists  down  to  the  time  of  Euse- 
bius  corresponds  with  that  of  Justin,  as  we  have  before  had 
occasion  to  remark.  (See  above,  p.  65.)  It  may  be  added 
that,  while  in  writings  addressed  to  Christian  readers  by  the 
earlier  Fathers  the  Old  Testament  is  often,  or  usually,  cited 
with  reference  to  the  author  or  book,  the  cases  are  com- 
paratively very  rare  in  which  the  Evangelists  are  named. 
For  example,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  according  to  Semisch, 
quotes  the  Old  Testament  writers  or  books  far  oftener  than 
otherwise  by  name,  while  in  his  very  numerous  citations 
from  the  Gospels  he  names  John  but  three  times,  Matthew 
twice,  Luke  twice,  and  Mark  once ;  in  the  countless  cita- 
tions of  the  Gospels  in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  the 
Evangelists  are  never  named ;  and  so  in  the  numerous 
quotations  of  the  Gospels  in  Cyprian's  writings,  with  the 
exception  of  a  single  treatise  (the  Testimonia  or  Ad  Qiiiri- 
num),  the  names  of  the  Evangelists  are  never  mentioned. 
But  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  expose  further  the  utter  futil- 
ity of  this  objection,  which  has  so  often  been  inconsiderately 
urged.* 

In  this  view  of  the  objections  to  the  supposition  that 
Justin    used   the   Gospel   of  John   and   included   it   in   his 

•See  Semisch,  i?/>  afostol.  DenUwilrdigkeiien,  u.  s.  w.,  p.  84  ff . ;  and  compare  Norton, 
Genuinenest,  etc.,  i.  20J  ff.,  2d  ed. 


77 

"Memoirs,"  I  have  either  cited  them  in  the  precise  lan- 
guage of  their  authors,  or  have  endeavored  to  state  them 
in  their  most  plausible  form.  When  fairly  examined,  only 
one  of  them  appears  to  have  weight,  and  that  not  much.  I 
refer  to  the  objection  that,  if  Justin  used  the  Fourth  Gospel 
at  all,  we  should  expect  him  to  have  used  it  more.  It  seems 
to  me,  therefore,  that  there  is  nothing  of  importance  to 
countervail  the  very  strong  presumption  from  different  lines 
of  evidence  that  the  "Memoirs"  of  Justin  Martyr,  "com- 
posed by  Apostles  and  their  companions,"  were  our  four 
Gospels. 

A  word  should  perhaps  be  added  in  reference  to  the  view 
of  Dr.  E.  A.  Abbott,  in  the  valuable  article  Gospels  con- 
tributed to  the  new  edition  of  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica. 
He  holds  that  Justin's  "  Memoirs  "  included  the  first  three 
Gospels,  and  these  only.  These  alone  were  received  by  the 
Christian  community  of  his  time  as  the  authentic  records  of 
the  life  and  teaching  of  Christ.  If  so,  how  can  we  explain 
the  fact  that  a  pretended  Gospel  so  different  in  character 
from  these,  and  so  inconsistent  with  them  as  it  is  supposed 
to  be,  should  have  found  universal  acceptance  in  the  next 
generation  on  the  part  of  Christians  of  the  most  opposite 
opinions,  without  trace  of  controversy,  with  the  slight  excep- 
tion of  the  Alogi  previously  mentioned  }  * 

I  have  not  attempted  in  the  present  paper  a  thorough  dis- 
cussion of  Justin  Martyr's  quotations,  but  only  to  illustrate 
by  some  decisive  examples  the  false  assumptions  on  which 
the  reasoning  of  Supernatural  Religion  is  founded.  In  a  full 
treatment  of  the  subject,  it  would  be  necessary  to  consider 
the  question  of  Justin's  use  of  apocryphal  Gospels,  and  in 
particular  the  "  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  "  and  the 
"Gospel  according  to  Peter,"  which  figure  so  prominently  in 
what  calls  itself  "  criticism  "  {die  Kritik)  as  the  pretended 
source  of  Justin's  quotations.     This  subject  has  already  been 

*See  above,  p.  i8.  The  work  of  Hippolytus,  of  which  we  know  only  the  tide  found  on 
the  cathedra  of  his  statue  at  Rome,  "On  \,or  "In  defence  of"  (I'-ep)  ]  the  Gospel  according 
to  John  and  the  Apocalypse,"  may  have  been  written  in  answer  to  their  objections.  See 
Bunsen's  Hippolytus,  2d  ed.  (1854),  i.  460.  On  the  Alogi  see  also  Weizsadcer,  Untersuchungen 
uber  d.  evang.  Geschichte,  p.  226  f.,  note. 


78 

referred  to ;  *  but  it  is  impossible  to  treat  it  here  in  detail. 
In  respect  to  "the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  "  I  will 
give  in  a  Note  some  quotations  from  the  article  Gospels, 
Apocryphal,  by  Professor  R.  A.  Lipsius,  of  Jena,  in  the 
second  volume  of  Smith  and  Wace's  Dictionary  of  Christian 
Biography,  published  in  the  present  year,  with  extracts  from 
other  recent  writers,  which  will  sufficiently  show  how  ground- 
less is  the  supposition  that  Justin's  quotations  were  mainly 
derived  from  this  Gospel,  f  Lipsius  certainly  will  not  be 
suspected  of  any  "apologetic"  tendency.  Credner's  hypoth- 
esis that  the  "  Gospel  according  to  Peter,"  which  he  regards 
as  the  Gospel  used  by  the  Jewish  Christians  generally,  and 
strangely  identifies  with  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  was  the 
chief  source  of  Justin's  quotations,  was  thoroughly  refuted 
by  Mr.  Norton  as  long  ago  as  the  year  1834  in  the  Select 
Journal  of  Foreign  Periodical  Literature,  and  afterwards  in 
a  Note  to  the  first  edition  of  his  work  on  the  Genuineness  of 
the  Gospels.  %  It  is  exposed  on  every  side  to  overwhelming 
objections,  and  has  hardly  a  shadow  of  evidence  to  support 
it.  Almost  our  whole  knowledge  of  this  Gospel  is  derived 
from  the  account  of  it  by  Serapion,  bishop  of  Antioch  near 
the  end  of  the  second  century  (a.d.  191-213),  who  is  the  first 
writer  by  whom  it  is  mentioned. ||  He  "found  it  for  the 
most  part  in  accordance  with  the  right  doctrine  of  the 
Saviour,"  but  containing  passages  favoring  the  opinions  of 
the  Docetae,  by  whom  it  was  used.  According  to  Origen,  it 
represented  the  "brethren"  of  Jesus  as  sons  of  Joseph  by  a 
former  wife.**  It  was  evidently  a  book  of  very  little  note. 
Though  it  plays  a  conspicuous  part  in  the  speculations  of 
modern  German  scholars  and  of  Supernatural  Religion  about 

♦See  above,  p.  15  f. 

t  See  Note  C,  at  the  end  of  this  essay. 

t  Select  Journal,  etc.  (Boston),  April,  1834,  vol.  iii.,  part  ii.,  pp.  234-242;  Evidences  of  the 
Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  vol.  i.  (1837),  Addit.  Notes,  pp.  ccxxxii.-cclv.  See  also  Bindemann, 
who  discusses  ably  the  whole  question  about  Justin  Martyr's  Gospels,  in  the  Theol.  Studien  u. 
Kritiken,  1842,  pp.  355-482 ;  Semisch,  Die  apostol.  Denkivurdigkeiten  u.  s.  w.,  pp.  43-59 ;  on  the 
other  side,  Credner,  Beitriige  u.  s.  w.,  vol.  i.  (1832);  Mayerhoff,  Hist.-crit.  Einleitung  in  die 
petrinischen  Schriften  (1835),  p.  234  ff. ;  Hilgenfeld, /TrjV.  Untersuchungenu.  s.  yi.,p.  i^^S. 

II  Serapion's  account  of  it  is  preserved  by  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  12. 

••Origen,  Comm.  in  Matt.  t.  x.  §  17,  0pp.  iii.  462  L 


79 

the  origin  of  the  Gospels  and  the  quotations  of  Justin 
Martyr,  not  a  single  fragment  of  it  has  come  down  to  us. 
This  nominis  umbra  has  therefore  proved  wonderfully  con- 
venient for  those  who  have  had  occasion,  in  support  of  their 
hypotheses,  "to  draw  unlimited  cheques,"  as  Lightfoot 
somewhere  expresses  it,  "on  the  bank  of  the  unknown." 
Mr.  Norton  has  shown,  by  an  acute  analysis  of  Serapion's 
account  of  it,  that  in  all  probability  it  was  not  an  historical, 
but  a  doctrinal  work.*  Lipsius  remarks:  "The  statement 
of  Theodoret  {Hcer.  Fab.  ii.  2)  that  the  Nazarenes  had  made 
use  of  this  Gospel  rested  probably  on  a  misunderstanding. 
The  passage  moreover  in  Justin  Martyr  {Dial.  c.  Tryph.  106) 
in  which  some  have  thought  to  find  mention  of  the  Memorials 
of  Peter  is  very  doubtful.  .  .  .  Herewith  fall  to  the  ground 
all  those  hypotheses  which  make  the  Gospel  of  Peter  into  an 
original  work  made  use  of  by  Justin  Martyr,  nigh  related  to 
the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  and  either  the  Jewish  Christian 
basis  of  our  canonical  St.  Mark  [so  Hilgenfeld],  or,  at  any 
rate,  the  Gospel  of  the  Gnosticizing  Ebionites  "  [Volkmar].  f 
To  this  I  would  only  add  that  almost  the  only  fact  of  which 
we  are  directly  informed  respecting  the  contents  of  the 
so-called  "  Gospel  of  Peter "  is  that  it  favored  the  opinions 
of  the  Docetas,  to  which  Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote  a  book 
against  the  Marcionites  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  11.  §  8),  was 
diametrically  opposed. 

Glancing  back  now  over  the  ground  we  have  traversed, 
we  find  (i)  that  the  general  reception  of  our  four  Gospels  as 
sacred  books  throughout  the  Christian  world  in  the  time  of 
Irenaeus  makes  it  almost  certain  that  the  "  Memoirs  called 
Gospels,"  "composed  by  Apostles  and  their  companions," 
which  were  used  by  his  early  contemporary  Justin  Martyr, 
and  were  read  in  the  Christian  churches  of  his  day  as  the 
authoritative  records  of  Christ's  life  and  teaching,  were  the 
same  books ;  (2)  that  this  presumption  is  confirmed  by  the 
actual  use  which  Justin  has  made  of  all  our  Gospels,  though 

*  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  ^ii  ed.,  vol  iii.  (1848),  pp.  255-260;  abridged  edition  (1867), 
pp.  362-366. 

t  Smith  and  Wace's  Diet,  of  Christian  Biog^.,  ii.  712. 


8o 

he  has  mainly  followed,  as  was  natural,  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  and  his  direct  citations  from  the  Gospel  of  John, 
and  references  to  it,  are  few ;  (3)  that  it  is  still  further 
strengthened,  in  respect  to  the  Gospel  of  John,  by  the 
evidences  of  its  use  between  the  time  of  Justin  and  that  of 
Irenseus,  both  by  the  Catholic  Christians  and  the  Gnostics, 
and  especially  by  its  inclusion  in  Tatian's  Diatessaroit ;  (4) 
that,  of  the  two  principal  assumptions  on  which  the  counter- 
argument is  founded,  one  is  demonstrably  false  and  the 
other  baseless  ;  and  (5)  that  the  particular  objections  to  the 
view  that  Justin  included  the  Gospel  of  John  in  his  "  Me- 
moirs "  are  of  very  little  weight.  We  are  authorized  then,  I 
believe,  to  regard  it  as  in  the  highest  degree  probable,  if  not 
morally  certain,  that  in  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr  the  Fourth 
Gospel  was  generally  received  as  the  work  of  the  Apostle 
John. 

We  pass  now  to  our  third  point,  the  use  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  by  the  various  Gnostic  sects.  The  length  to  which 
the  preceding  discussion  has  extended  makes  it  necessary  to 
treat  this  part  of  the  subject  in  a  very  summary  manner. 

The  Gnostic  sects  with  which  we  are  concerned  became 
conspicuous  in  the  second  quarter  of  the  second  century, 
under  the  reigns  of  Hadrian  (a.d.  i  17-138)  and  Antoninus 
Pius  (a.d.  1 38-161).  The  most  prominent  among  them 
were  those  founded  by  Marcion,  Valentinus,  and  Basilides. 
To  these  may  be  added  the  Ophites  or  Naassenes. 

Marcion  has  already  been  referred  to.*  He  prepared  a 
Gospel  for  his  followers  by  striking  from  the  Gospel  of  Luke 
what  was  inconsistent  with  his  system,  and  treated  in  a  sim- 
ilar manner  ten  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  He  rejected  the 
other  Gospels,  not  on  the  ground  that  they  were  spurious, 
but  because  he  believed  their  authors  were  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Jewish  prejudices.!  In  proof  of  this,  he  appealed 
to  the  passage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  on  which  Baur 

•  See  above,  p.  19. 

t  See  Irenseus,  Har.  iii.  12.  §  12. 


8i 

and  his  school  lay  so  much  stress.  "Marcion,"  says  Ter- 
tullian,  "having  got  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Galatians, 
who  reproves  even  the  Apostles  themselves  for  not  walking 
straight,  according  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  .  .  .  endeavors 
to  destroy  the  reputation  of  those  Gospels  which  are  truly 
such,  and  are  published  under  the  name  of  Apostles,  or  also 
of  apostolic  men,  in  order  that  he  may  give  to  his  own  the 
credit  which  he  takes  away  from  them."  *  In  another  place, 
Tertullian  says,  addressing  Marcion:  "If  you  had  not  re- 
jected some  and  corrupted  others  of  the  Scriptures  which 
contradict  your  opinion,  the  Gospel  of  John  would  have  con- 
futed you."  t  Again  :  "  Of  those  historians  whom  we  pos- 
sess, it  appears  that  Marcion  selected  Luke  for  his  mutila- 
tions." :j:  The  fact  that  Marcion  placed  his  rejection  of  the 
Gospels  on  this  ground,  that  the  Apostles  were  but  imper- 
fectly enlightened,  shows  that  he  could  not  question  their 
apostolic  authorship.  His  reference  to  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians  indicates  also  that  the  "pillar-apostles"  (Gal.  ii. 
9),  Peter  and  John,  were  particularly  in  his  mind.  Peter,  it 
will  be  remembered,  was  regarded  as  having  sanctioned  the 
Gospel  of  Mark.     (See  above,  p.  21.) 

It  has  been  asserted  by  many  modern  critics,  as  Hilgen- 
feld,  Volkmar,  Scholten,  Davidson,  and  others,  that,  if  Mar- 
cion had  been  acquainted  with  the  Gospel  of  John,  he  would 
have  chosen  that,  rather  than  Luke,  for  expurgation,  on 
account  of  its  marked  anti-Judaic  character.  But  a  careful 
comparison  of  John's  Gospel  with  Marcion's  doctrines  will 
show  that   it  contradicts   them  in  so   many  places  and  so 

*Adv.  Marc.  iv.  3.  Comp.  Preiser,  cc.  22-24.  See  also  Norton,  Genuineness  of  the 
Gospels,  2d  ed.,  iii.  206  ff.,  303  ff . ;   or  abridged  edition,  pp.  332  ff.,  392  ff. 

^De  Carne  Christi,  c.  3. 

XAdv.  Marc.  iv.  2.  " Lucam  videtur  Marcion  elegisse  quem  caederet."  On  account  of  the 
use  of  videtur  here,  Dr.  Davidson,  following  some  German  critics,  says,  "  Even  in  speaking 
about  Marcion's  treatment  of  Luke,  Tertullian  puts  it  forth  as  a  conjecture."  {Introd.  to  ttie 
Study  0/  the  N.  T.,  ii.  305.)  A  coftjecture,  when  Tertullian  has  devoted  a  whole  book  to  the 
refutation  of  Marcion  from  those  passages  of  Luke  which  he  retained!  The  context  and  all 
the  facts  of  the  case  show  that  no  doubt  can  possibly  have  been  intended ;  and  Tertullian  often 
uses  videri,  not  in  the  sense  of  "  to  seem,"  but  of  "  to  be  seen,"  "to  be  apparent."  See  A^ol. 
c.  19;  De  Orat.  c.  21 ;  Adv.  Prax.  cc.  26,  29;  Adv.  Jud.  c.  5,  from  Isa.  i.  12 ;  and  De  Preiser. 
c  38,  which  has  likewise  been  misinterpreted. 


82 

absolutely  that  it  would  have  been  utterly  unsuitable  for  his 
purpose.  * 

The  theosophic  or  speculative  Gnostics,  as  the  Ophites, 
Valentinians,  and  Basilidians,  found  more  in  John  which,  by 
ingenious  interpretation,  they  could  use  in  support  of  their 
systems.! 

It  is  moreover  to  be  observed,  in  regard  to  the  Marcionites, 
as  Mr.  Norton  remarks,  "  that  their  having  recourse  to  the 
mutilation  of  Luke's  Gospel  shows  that  no  other  history  of 
Christ's  ministry  existed  more  favorable  to  their  doctrines ; 
that,  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  when  Marcion 
lived,  there  was  no  Gnostic  Gospel  in  being  to  which  he 
could  appeal."  $ 

We  come  now  to  Valentinus.  It  has  already  appeared  that 
the  later  Valentinians,  represented  by  Ptolemy,  Heracleon, 
and  the  Excerpta  Theodoti,  received  the  Gospel  of  John 
without  question.  ||  The  presumption  is  therefore  obviously 
very  strong  that  it  was  so  received  by  the  founder  of  the 
sect.  **  That  this  was  so  is  the  representation  of  Tertullian. 
He  contrasts  the  course  pursued  by  Marcion  and  Valentinus. 
"  One  man,"  he  says,  "  perverts  the  Scriptures  with  his 
hand,  another  by  his  exposition  of  their  meaning.  For, 
if  it  appears  that  Valentinus  uses  the  entire  document, — 
si  Valentinus  integro  instrumento  uti  videtur,  —  he  has  yet 
done  violence  to  the  truth  more  artfully  than  Marcion." 
For  Marcion,  he  goes  on  to  say,  openly  used  the  knife, 
not  the  pen ;  Valentinus  has  spared  the  Scriptures,  but 
explains  them  away,  or  thrusts  false  meanings  into  them.ff 

*See  on  this  point  Bleek,  Einl.  in  d.  N.  T.,  3d  ed.  (1875),  p.  158,  S.,  with  Mangold's  note, 
who  remarks  that  "  it  was  simply  impossible  for  Marcion  to  choose  the  fourth  Gospel"  for  this  pur- 
pose ;  also  Weizsacker,  Untersiichungen  Mber  d.  evang.  Geschichte  (1864),  p.  230,  ff. ;  Luthkrdt, 
Diejohan.  Ur sprung  des  vierten  Ev.  (1874),  p.  92,  or  Eng.  trans.,  p.  108  f. ;  Godet,  Comm.  sur 
Pivangile  de  St.Jean,^  2d  ed.,  torn.  i.  (1876),  p.  270  f.,or  Eng.  trans.,  i.  222  f. 

t  On  the  use  of  the  N.T.  by  the  Valentinians,  see  particvilarly  G.  Heinrici,  Die  valentinian- 
iiche  Gnosis  und  die  Heilige  Sckri/t,  Berlin,  1871. 

t  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  2d  ed.,  iii.  304;  abridged  ed.,  p.  392  f. 
II  See  above,  p.  60  f. 

••On  this  point,  see  Norton,  Genuineness,  etc.,  2d  ed.,  iii.  321  f. ;  abridged  ed.,  p.  403  £. 
tt  Terttillian, /'»-«jm  c.  38.      On  the  use  of  the  word  videtur,  see  above,  p.  81,  notej. 
The  context  shows  that  no  doubt  is  intended.     If,  however,  the  word  should  be  taken  in  the  sense 


83 

The  testimony  of  Tertullian  is  apparently  confirmed  by 
Hippolytus,  who,  in  a  professed  account  of  the  doctrines  of 
Valentinus  {Ref.  Hcsr.  vi.  21-37,  or  16-32,  Eng.  trans.; 
comp.  the  introduction,  §3),  says:  "All  the  prophets,  there- 
fore, and  the  Law  spoke  from  the  Demiurgus,  a  foolish  God, 
he  says,  [and  spoke]  as  fools,  knowing  nothing.  Therefore, 
says  he,  the  Saviour  says,  'All  who  have  come  before  me 
are  thieves  and  robbers  '  (John  x.  8) ;  and  the  Apostle,  *  The 
mystery  which  was  not  made  known  to  former  generations'  " 
(Eph.  iii.  4,  5).  Here,  however,  it  is  urged  that  Hippolytus, 
in  his  account  of  Valentinus,  mixes  up  references  to  Valen- 
tinus and  his  followers  in  such  a  manner  that  we  cannot  be 
sure  that,  in  the  use  of  the  ^^tr/,  "  he  says,"  he  is  not  quoting 
from  some  one  of  his  school,  and  not  the  master,  A  full  ex- 
hibition of  the  facts  and  discussion  of  the  question  cannot 
be  given  here.  I  believe  there  is  a  strong  presumption  that 
Hippolytus  is  quoting  from  a  work  of  Valentinus :  the  reg- 
ular exposition  of  the  opinions  of  his  disciples,  Secundus, 
Ptolemy,  and  Heracleon,  does  not  begin  till  afterwards,  in 
c.  38,  or  c.  33  of  the  English  translation ;  but  it  is  true  that, 
in  the  present  text,  ^rici  is  used  vaguely  toward  the  end  of 
c.  35,  where  the  opinions  of  the  Italian  and  Oriental  schools 
are  distinguished  in  reference  to  a  certain  point.  I  there- 
fore do  not  press  this  quotation  as  direct  proof  of  the  use  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  by  Valentinus  himself. 

Next  to  Marcion  and  Valentinus,  the  most  eminent 
among  the  founders  of  early  Gnostic  sects  was  Basilides,  of 
Alexandria.  He  flourished  about  a.d.  125.  In  the  Homi- 
lies on  Luke  generally  ascribed  to  Origen,  though  some 
have  questioned  their  genuineness,  we  are  told,  in  an  ac- 
count of  apocryphal  Gospels,  that  "  Basilides  had  the  au- 
dacity to  write  a  Gospel  according  to  Basilides."*  Ambrose 
and  Jerome  copy  this  account  in  the  prefaces  to  their  re- 

of  "seems,"  the  contrast  must  be  between  the  ostensible  use  of  the  Scriptures  by  Valentinus  and 
his  virtual  rejection  of  them  by  imposing  upon  them  a  sense  contrary  to  their  teaching.  Corap. 
Irenaeus,  Hcer.  iii.  12.  §  12:  "  scripturas  quidem  confitentes,  interpretationes  vero  convertunt." 
So  Heer.  i.  3.  §  6;  iii.  14.  §  4. 

*  So  the  Greek :  Origen,  Horn.  i.  in  Luc.,  0pp.  iii.  932,  note ;  the  Latin  in  Jerome's  transla- 
tion reads,  "  Ausus  fuit  et  Basilides  scribere  evangelium,  et  suo  illud  nomine  titulare." 


84 

spective  commentaries  on  Luke  and  Matthew ;  but  there  is 
no  other  notice  of  such  a  Gospel,  or  evidence  of  its  existence, 
in  all  Christian  antiquity,  so  far  as  is  known.  The  work 
referred  to  could  not  have  been  a  history  of  Christ's  minis- 
try, set  up  by  Basilides  and  his  followers  in  opposition  to 
the  Gospels  received  by  the  catholic  Christians.  In  that 
case,  we  should  certainly  have  heard  of  it  from  those  who 
wrote  in  opposition  to  his  heresy ;  but  he  and  his  followers 
are,  on  the  contrary,  represented  as  appealing  to  our  Gospels 
of  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John ;  *  and  Hippolytus  states  ex- 
pressly that  the  Basilidian  account  of  all  things  concerning 
the  Saviour  subsequent  to  the  birth  of  Jesus  agreed  with 
that  given  "in  the  Gospels."!  The  origin  of  the  error  is 
easily  explained :  a  work  in  which  Basilides  set  forth  his 
view  of  the  Gospel,  i.e.  of  the  teaching  of  Christ,  might 
naturally  be  spoken  of  as  "the  Gospel  according  to  Basil- 
ides." X  We  have  an  account  of  such  a  work.  Agrippa 
Castor,  a  contemporary  of  Basilides,  and  who,  according  to 
Eusebius,  wrote  a  very  able  refutation  of  him,  tells  us  that 
Basilides  "composed  twenty-four  books  on  the  Gospel,"  £i?rd 
t^iayyDMv.\  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  is  one  of  our  prin- 
cipal authorities  for  his  opinions,  cites  his  'E^?}-yT/TCKd,  "Exposi- 
tions," or  "Interpretations,"  quoting  a  long  passage  from 
"the  twenty-third  book."**  In  the  "Dispute  between 
Archelaus  and  Manes,"  the  "thirteenth  treatise"  of  Basi- 
lides is  cited,  containing  an  explanation  of  the  parable  of 
the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus.ff  I  agree  with  Dr.  Hort  in 
thinking  it  exceedingly  probable  that  the  work  of  Basilides 
which  Hippolytus  cites  so  often  in  his  account  of  his  opin- 
ions is  the  same  which  is  quoted  by  Clement  and  Archelaus, 
and  mentioned  by  Agrippa  Castor.  J  J     Lipsius  remarks  : — 

•Besides  the  work  of  Hippolytns,  to  be  further  noticed,  see  the  passages  from  Clement  of 
Alexandria  and  Epiphanius  in  Kirchhofer's  QuelUnsamnilung,  p.  415  f. 

tRe/.  Hcer.  c.  27,  ore.  >6,  Eng.  trans. 

tOn  this  use  of  the  term  "Gospel,"  see  Norton,  Genuineness.,  etc.,  iii.  224  £E.,  or  abridged 
edition,  p.  343  f. 

II  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  7.  §§  6,  7. 

**  Strom,  iv.  i2,  p.  599  f. 

\\  Archelai et  Manetis  Disputatio,  c.  55,  in  Routh,  Rell.  sacra,  ed.  alt.,  v.  197. 

%X  See  th:  .nrt.  Basilides  in  Smith  and  Wace's  Diet,  ef  Christian  Biog.,  vol.  i.  (1877),  p.  ayi. 


85 

In  any  case,  the  work  must  have  been  an  exposition  of  some  Gospel 
by  whose  authority  Basilides  endeavored  to  establish  his  Gnostic  doc- 
trine. And  it  is  anyhow  most  unlikely  that  he  would  have  written  a 
commentary  on  a  Gospel  of  his  own  composition.  Of  our  canonical 
Gospels,  those  of  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John,  were  used  in  his  school;  and 
from  the  fragments  just  referred  to  we  may  reasonably  conclude  that  it 
was  the  Gospel  of  Luke  on  which  he  wrote  his  commentary.* 

On  this  it  may  be  observed,  that  the  phrase  of  Agrippa 
Castor,  "twenty-four  books  on  the  Gospel,"  excludes  the 
idea  that  any  particular  Gospel,  like  that  of  Luke,  could  be 
intended.  Such  a  Gospel  would  have  been  named  or  other- 
wise defined.  The  expression  -o  Evayyaiov,  if  it  refers  to  any 
book,  must  signify,  in  accordance  with  that  use  of  the  term 
which  has  before  been  illustrated,!  "the  Gospels"  collec- 
tively. It  is  so  understood  by  Norton, J  Tischendorf,  Lu- 
thardt,  Godet,  and  others.  It  would  not  in  itself  necessarily 
denote  precisely  our  four  Gospels,  though  their  use  by 
Justin  Martyr,  and  the  fact  that  Luke  and  John  are  com- 
mented on  by  Basilides,  and  Matthew  apparently  referred  to 
by  him,  would  make  it  probable  that  they  were  meant. 

There  is,  however,  another  sense  of  the  word  "Gospel"  as 
used  by  Basilides, —  namely,  "the  knowledge  {gnosis)  of  su- 
permundane things "  (Hippol.  Ref.  Hczr.  vii,  27) ;  and  "  the 
Gospel "  in  this  sense  plays  a  prominent  part  in  his  system 
as  set  forth  by  Hippolytus.  The  "  twenty-four  books  on 
the  Gospel "  mentioned  by  Agrippa  Castor,  the  "  Exposi- 
tions" or  "Interpretations"  of  Clement,  may  perhaps  have 
related  to  "the  Gospel"  in  this  sense.  We  cannot  there- 
fore, I  think,  argue  confidently  from  this  title  that  Basilides 
wrote  a  Commentary  on  our  Four  Gospels,  though  it  natu- 
rally suggests  this.  It  is  evident,  at  any  rate,  that  he 
supported  his  gnosis  by  far-fetched  interpretations  of  the 
sayings  of  Christ  as  recorded  in  our  Gospels ;  and  that  the 
supposition  that  he  had  a  Gospel  of  his  own  composition,  in 
the  sense  of  a  history  of  Christ's  life  and  teaching,  has  not 
only  no  positive  support  of  any  strength,  but  is  on  various 

*  See  the  art.  Gospels  in  the  work  just  cited,  ii.  715. 

/See  above,  p.  22. 

$See  Norton's  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  xd  ed.,  iii.  235-239,  or  abridged  edition,  p.  351  ff. 


86 

accounts  utterly  improbable.  That  he  used  an  apocryphal 
Gospel  not  of  his  own  composition  is  a  supposition  for 
which  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  of  any  kind  whatever. 

I  have  spoken  of  Basilides  as  quoting  the  Gospel  of  John 
in  the  citations  from  him  by  Hippolytus.  The  passages  are 
the  following:  "And  this,  he  says,  is  what  is  said  in  the 
Gospels :  '  The  true  light,  which  enlighteneth  every  man, 
was  coming  into  the  world.'"  {Ref.  Hcer.mx.  22,  ore.  lO, 
Eng.  trans.)  The  words  quoted  agree  exactly  with  John 
i.  9  in  the  Greek,  though  I  have  adopted  a  different  con- 
struction from  that  of  the  common  version  in  translating. 
Again,  "And  that  each  thing,  he  says,  has  its  own  seasons, 
the  Saviour  is  a  sufficient  witness,  when  he  says,  '  My  hour 
is  not  yet  com^e.'  "     {Ref>  Hcer.  vii.  27,  al.  15  ;  John  ii.  4.) 

Here  two  objections  are  raised:  first,  that  we  cannot 
infer  from  the  fy^/,  "he  says,"  that  Hippolytus  is  quoting 
from  a  treatise  by  Basilides  himself ;  and,  secondly,  that  the 
system  of  Basilides  as  set  forth  by  Hippolytus  represents  a 
later  development  of  the  original  scheme, —  in  other  words, 
that  he  is  quoting  the  writings  and  describing  the  opinions 
of  the  disciples  of  the  school,  and  not  of  its  founder. 

To  analyze  the  account  of  Hippolytus  and  give  the  rea- 
sons for  taking  a  different  view  would  require  an  article  by 
itself,  and  cannot  be  undertaken  here.  But  on  the  first 
point  I  will  quote  a  writer  who  will  not  be  suspected  of  an 
"  apologetic  "  tendency,  Matthew  Arnold.     He  says  :  — 

It  is  true  that  the  author  of  the  Philosophumena  [another  name 
for  the  "  Refutation  of  all  Heresies  "  commonly  ascribed  to  Hippolytus] 
sometimes  mixes  up  the  opinions  of  the  master  of  a  school  with  those 
of  his  followers,  so  that  it  is  difficult  to  distinguish  between  them.  But, 
if  we  take  all  doubtful  cases  of  the  kind  and  compare  them  with  our 
present  case,  we  shall  find  that  it  is  not  one  of  them.  It  is  not  true 
that  here,  where  the  name  of  Basileides  has  come  just  before,  and 
where  no  mention  of  his  son  or  of  his  disciples  has  intervened  since, 
there  is  any  such  ambiguity  as  is  found  in  other  cases.  It  is  not  true 
that  the  author  of  the  Philosophnmetia  wields  the  subjectless  he  says  in 
the  random  manner  alleged,  with  no  other  formula  for  quotation  both 
from  the  master  and  from  the  followers.  In  general,  he  uses  the  for- 
mula according  to  them  (kot'  avrovc)  when  he  quotes  from  the  school,  and 
the  formula  he  says  (^0  when  he  gives  the  dicta  of  the  master.    And 


S7 

in  this  particular  case  he  manifestly  quotes  the  dicta  of  Basileides,  and 
no  one  who  had  not  a  theory  to  serve  would  ever  dream  of  doubting  it. 
Basileides,  therefore,  about  the  year  125  of  our  era,  had  before  him  the 
Fourth  Gospel.* 

On  the  second  point,  the  view  that  Hippolytus  as  con- 
trasted with  Irenseus  has  given  an  account  of  the  system  of 
Basilides  himself  is  the  prevaiHng  one  among  scholars  :  it  is 
held,  for  example,  by  Jacobi,  Bunsen,  Baur,  Hase,  Uhlhom, 
Moller,  Mansel,  Pressens^,  and  Dr.  Hort.  The  principal 
representative  of  the  opposite  opinion  is  Hilgenfeld,  with 
whom  agree  Lipsius,  Volkmar,  and  Scholten.f  Dr.  Hort 
has  discussed  the  matter  very  ably  and  fairly  in  his  article 
Basilides  in  Smith  and  Wace's  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biog- 
raphy;  and,  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  his  conclusions  are  sound. 

In  view  of  all  the  evidence,  then,  I  think  we  have  good 
reason  for  believing  that  the  Gospel  of  John  was  one  of  a 
collection  of  Gospels,  probably  embracing  our  four,  which 
Basilides  and  his  followers  received  as  authoritative  about 
the  year  125. 

The  first  heretics  described  by  Hippolytus  are  the  Oriental 
Gnostics, —  the  Ophites,  or  Naassenes,  and  the  Peratae,  a 
kindred  sect.  They  are  generally  regarded  as  the  earliest 
Gnostics.  Hippolytus  cites  from  their  writings  numerous 
quotations  from  the  Gospel  of  John.  :j:  But  it  is  the  view 
of  many  scholars  that  Hippolytus  is  really  describing  the 
opinions  and  quoting  the  writings  of  the  later  representa- 
tives of  these  sects.  Not  having  investigated  this  point  suf- 
ficiently, I  shall  argue  only  from  what  is  undisputed. 

Were  I  undertaking  a  full  discussion  of  the  external  evi- 
dences of  John's  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  it  would 
be  necessary  to  consider  here  some  questions  about  Papias, 

•Matthew  Arnold,  God  and  the  Bible  (1875),  p.  268  f.,  Eng.  ed.  See,  to  the  same  effect, 
Weizsacker,  Untersuchungen  u.  s.  w.,  p.  232  ff.  Compare  Dr.  Hort,  art.  Basilides  in  Smith  and 
Wace's  Diet,  of  Christian  Biog:,  i.  271,  and  Westcott,  Canon  of  the  N.  T.,  4th  ed.,  p.  288.  On 
the  other  side,  see  Schohen,  Die  dltesten  Zeugnisse  u.  s.  w.  (1867),  p.  65  f. ;  Sup.  Rel.,  ii.  51, 
7th  ed.,  and  the  writers  whom  he  there  cites. 

tThe  two  most  recent  discussions  are  that  by  Jacobi,  in  Brieger's  Zeitschrift  fur  Kirchen- 
geschichte,  1876-77,  i.  481-544,  and,  on  the  other  side,  by  Hilgenfeld,  in  his  Zeitschrift  f.  wiss. 
TheoL,  1878,  xxi.  228-250,  where  the  literature  of  the  subject  is  given  pretty  fully.  Moeller,  in  a 
brief  notice  of  the  two  articles  (Bnegar's  Zeitschrt/t,  1877-78,  iL  422),  adheres  to  his  former  view, 
versus  Hilgenfeld. 

tRef.  Hcer.  v.  7-9  (Naassenes),  12,  16,  17  (Perata:). 


and  his  use  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  as  reported  by 
Eusebius ;  also  the  apparent  reference  to  the  First  Epistle 
of  John  by  Polycarp,  and  his  relation  to  Irenaeus  ;  and,  fur- 
ther, to  notice  the  Ignatian  Epistles,  the  "Testaments  of 
the  Twelve  Patriarchs,"  and  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus.  On 
the  first  two  subjects,  and  on  "The  Silence  of  Eusebius," 
connected  with  the  former,  I  would  refer  to  the  very  able 
articles  of  Professor  (now  Bishop)  Lightfoot  in  the  Contem- 
porary Review!^  As  to  the  Ignatian  Epistles,  their  genuine- 
ness in  any  form  is  questionable,  to  say  nothing  of  the  state 
of  the  text,  though  the  shorter  Epistles  may  belong,  in  sub- 
stance, to  the  middle  of  the  second  century;  the  "Testa- 
ments of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  "  are  interpolated,  and  need 
a  thoroughly  critical  edition  ;  and  the  date  of  the  Epistle  to 
Diognetus  is  uncertain.  In  any  event,  I  do  not  think  the 
references  to  the  Gospel  of  John  in  these  writings  are  of 
great  importance. 

But  to  return  to  our  proper  subject.  The  use  of  the 
Gospel  of  John  by  .the  Gnostic  sects,  in  the  second  century, 
affords  a  strong,  it  may  seem  decisive,  argument  for  their 
genuineness.  However  ingeniously  they  might  pervert  its 
meaning,  it  is  obvious  to  every  intelligent  reader  that  this 
Gospel  is,  in  reality,  diametrically  opposed  to  the  essential 
principles  of  Gnosticism.  The  Christian  Fathers,  in  their 
contests  with  the  Gnostics,  found  it  an  armory  of  weapons. 
Such  being  the  case,  let  us  suppose  it  to  have  been  forged 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  in  the  heat  of  the 
Gnostic  controversy.  It  was  thus  a  book  which  the  founders 
of  the  Gnostic  sects,  who  flourished  ten,  twenty,  or  thirty 
years  before,  had  never  heard  of.  How  is  it  possible,  then, 
to  explain  the  fact  that  their  followers  should  have  not  only 
received  it,  but  have  received  it,  so  far  as  appears,  without 
question  or  discussion  }     It  must  have  been  received  by  the 

*  Contemporary  Review,  January,  1875,  xxv.  169  ff.,  "The  Silence  of  Eusebius";  May,  1875, 
p.  8275.,  "  Polycarp  of  Smyrna";  August  and  October,  1875,  xxvi.  377  fi.,  828  ff.,  'Papias 
of  Hierapolis."  On  "the  silence  of  Eusebius,"  see  also  Westcott,  Carton  of  the  N,  T.,  4th  ed., 
p.  229  f.  With  Lightfoot's  article  in  the  Contemp.  Review  for  February,  1875,  "The  Ignatian 
Epistles,"  should  be  compared  the  Preface  to  Supernatural  Reltf^iottf  m  the  sixth  and  later 
editions  of  that  work. 


89 

founders  of  these  sects  from  the  beginning;  and  we  have  no 
reason  to  distrust  the  testimony  of  Hippolytus  to  what  is 
under  these  circumstances  so  probable,  and  is  attested  by 
other  evidence.  But,  if  received  by  the  founders  of  these 
sects,  it  must  have  been  received  at  the  same  time  by  the 
catholic  Christians.  They  would  not,  at  a  later  period, 
have  taken  the  spurious  work  from  the  heretics  with  whom 
they  were  in  controversy.  It  was  then  generally  received, 
both  by  Gnostics  and  their  opponents,  between  the  years 
1 20  and  130.  What  follows .''  It  follows  that  the  Gnostics 
of  that  date  received  it  because  they  could  not  help  it. 
They  would  not  have  admitted  the  authority  of  a  book  which 
could  be  reconciled  with  their  doctrines  only  by  the  most 
forced  interpretation,  if  they  could  have  destroyed  its  au- 
thority by  denying  its  genuineness.  Its  genuineness  could 
then  be  easily  ascertained.  Ephesus  was  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal cities  of  the  Eastern  world,  the  centre  of  extensive 
commerce,  the  metropolis  of  Asia  Minor.  Hundreds,  if  not 
thousands,  of  people  were  living  who  had  known  the  Apos- 
tle John,  The  question  whether  he,  the  beloved  disciple, 
had  committed  to  writing  his  recollections  of  his  Master's 
life  and  teaching,  was  one  of  the  greatest  interest.  The 
fact  of  the  reception  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  his  work  at 
so  early  a  date,  by  parties  so  violently  opposed  to  each 
other,  proves  that  the  evidence  of  its  genuineness  was  deci- 
sive. This  argument  is  further  confirmed  by  the  use  of  the 
Gospel  by  the  opposing  parties  in  the  later  Montanistic  con- 
troversy, and  in  the  disputes  about  the  time  of  celebrating 
Easter. 

The  last  external  evidence  which  I  shall  adduce  in  favor 
of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  of  John  is  of  a  very  early 
date,  being  attached  to  the  Gospel  itself,  and  found  in  all 
the  copies  which  have  come  down  to  us,  whether  in  the  orig- 
inal or  in  ancient  versions.  I  refer  to  what  is  now  num- 
bered as  the  twenty-fifth  verse,  with  the  last  half  of  the 
twenty-fourth,  of  the  concluding  chapter  of  the  Gospel. 
The  last  three  verses  of  the  chapter  read  thus:  "Hence 


90 

this  report  spread  among  the  brethren,  that  that  disciple 
was  not  to  die ;  yet  Jesus  did  not  say  to  him  that  he  would 
not  die ;  but,  If  I  will  that  he  remain  till  I  come,  what  is 
that  to  thee  ?  This  is  the  disciple  that  testifieth  concerning 
these  things,  and  wrote  these  things."  Here,  I  suppose, 
the  author  of  the  Gospel  ended.  The  addition  follows : 
"And  we  know  that  his  testimony  is  true.  And  there  are 
many  other  things  that  Jesus  did,  which,  if  they  should  be 
severally  written,  /  do  not  think  that  the  world  itself  would 
contain  the  books  written." 

In  the  words  "And  we  know  that  his  testimony  is  true," 
we  manifestly  have  either  a  real  or  a  forged  attestation  to 
the  truth  and  genuineness  of  the  Gospel.  Suppose  the 
Gospel  written  by  an  anonymous  forger  of  the  middle  of  the 
second  century :  what  possible  credit  could  he  suppose 
would  be  given  to  it  by  an  anonymous  attestation  like  this } 
A  forger  with  such  a  purpose  would  have  named  his  pre- 
tended authority,  and  have  represented  the  attestation  as 
formally  and  solemnly  given.  The  attestation,  as  it  stands, 
clearly  presupposes  that  the  author  (or  authors)  of  it  was 
known  to  those  who  first  received  the  copy  of  the  Gospel 
containing  it. 

What  view,  then,  are  we  to  take  of  it }  The  following 
supposition,  which  I  give  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Norton, 
affords  an  easy  and  natural  explanation,  and,  so  far  as  I  can 
see,  the  only  plausible  explanation  of  the  phenomena.  Mr. 
Norton  says :  — 

According  to  ancient  accounts,  St.  John  wrote  his  Gospel  at  Ephesus, 
over  the  church  in  which  city  he  presided  during  the  latter  part  of  his 
long  life.  It  is  not  improbable  that,  before  his  death,  its  circulation  had 
been  confined  to  the  members  of  that  church.  Hence  copies  of  it  would 
be  afterwards  obtained;  and  the  copy  provided  for  transcription  was,  we 
may  suppose,  accompanied  by  the  strong  attestation  which  we  now  find, 
given  by  the  church,  or  the  elders  of  the  church,  to  their  full  faith  in  the 
accounts  which  it  contained,  and  by  the  concluding  remark,  made  by  the 
writer  of  this  attestation  in  his  own  person.* 

The  style  of   this  addition,  it  is  further  to  be  observed, 

*  Norton,  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  2d  ed.,  vol.  i.,  Addit.  Notes,  p.  xcv.  f. 


91 

differs  from  that  of  the  writer  of  the  Gospel,  It  was  prob- 
ably first  written  a  little  separate  from  the  text,  and  after- 
wards became  incorporated  with  it  by  a  natural  mistake  of 
transcribers.  According  to  Tischendorf,  the  last  verse  of 
this  Gospel  in  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  is  written  in  a  different 
hand  from  the  preceding,  though  by  a  contemporary  scribe. 
He  accordingly  rejects  it  as  not  having  belonged  to  the 
Gospel  as  it  was  originally  written.  Tregelles  does  not 
agree  with  him  on  the  palaeographical  question. 

The  passage  we  have  been  considering  suggests  various 
questions  and  remarks,  but  cannot  be  further  treated  here. 
I  will  only  refer  to  the  recent  commentaries  of  Godet  and 
Westcott,  and  end  abruptly  the  present  discussion,  which 
has  already  extended  to  a  far  greater  length  than  was 
originally  intended. 

Note  A.     (See  p.  22.) 

On  the  quotations  of  Matt.  xi.  27  {comp.  Luke  x.  22)  in  the  writings 
OF  the  Christian  Fathers. 

Justin  Martyr  {Dial.  c.  100)  quotes  the  following  as  "written  in  the  Gospel": 

"  All  things  have  been  delivered  {jrapaik^oTai)  to  me  by  the  Father ;  and  no 
one  knoweth  {yivuaKei)  the  Father  save  the  Son,  neither  [knoweth  any  one]  the 
Son  save  the  Father,  and  they  to  whomsoever  the  Son  may  reveal  him  "  (olf  dv 
6  viog  anoKaTivipy).  In  the  Apology  (c.  63)  he  quotes  the  passage  twice,  thus :  "  No 
one  knew  (or  "  hath  known,"  lyvu)  the  Father  save  the  Son,  neither  [knoweth 
any  one]  the  Son  save  the  Father,  and  they  to  whomsoever  the  Son  may  reveal 
him";  the  order  of  the  words,  however,  varying  in  the  last  clause,  in  which 
b  vl6g  stands  once  after  anoKokv'^. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  quote  the  corresponding  passages  in  our  Gospels  in  full, 
as  the  reader  can  readily  turn  to  them.  The  variations  of  Justin  are,  (i)  the 
use  of  the  perfect  (Trapadedora*),  "have  been  delivered,"  instead  of  the  aorist 
{Tape66dri),  strictly,  "were  delivered,"  though  our  idiom  often  requires  the  aorist 
to  be  translated  by  the  perfect ;  (2)  "  the  Father  "  for  "  my  Father  "  (omitting 
jjov) ;  (3)  the  use,  in  two  out  of  three  instances,  of  the  aorist  eyvu,  "  knew,"  or 
"  hath  known,"  instead  of  the  present  yivuaKei  (this  is  the  word  used  by  Luke ; 
Matthew  has  hncyivuaKEL) ;  (4)  the  transposition  of  the  two  principal  clauses; 
(5)  the  omission  of  tlq  eiriyivtjaKei,  "knoweth  any  one,"  in  the  second  clause,  if 
we  compare  Matthew,  or  the  substitution  of  "  the  Father  "  and  "  the  Son  "  for 
"who  the  Father  is"  and  "who  the  Son  is,"  if  we  compare  Luke;  (6)  the  use 
of  the  plural  (o'lg  av),  "they  to  whomsoever," instead  of  the  singular  (^  dv),  "^ 
to  whomsoever";  and  (7)  the  substitution  of  "may  reveal"  {h.'KOKakv^  for 
"may  will  to  reveal"  {,3ovXjiTai  anoKaAvil>ai). 

The  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  devotes  more  than  ten  pages  to  this  pas- 


92 

sage  (vol.  i.  pp.  401-412,  7th  ed.),  which  he  regards  as  of  great  importance,  and 
insists,  on  the  ground  of  these  variations,  that  Justin  could  not  have  taken  it  from 
our  Gospels.  To  follow  him  step  by  step  would  be  tedious.  His  fundamental 
error  is  the  assertion  that  "  the  peculiar  form  of  the  quotation  in  Justin"  (here  he 
refers  especially  to  the  variations  numbered  3  and  4,  above)  "occurred  in  what 
came  to  be  considered  heretical  Gospels,  and  constituted  the  basis  of  important 
Gnostic  doctrines  "  (p.  403).  Again,  "  Here  we  have  the  exact  quotation  twice 
made  by  Justin,  with  the  iyvu  and  the  same  order,  set  forth  as  the  reading  of  the 
Gospels  of  the  Marcosians  and  other  sects,  and  the  highest  testimony  to  their 
system  "  (pp.  406,  407).  Yet  again,  "Irenaeus  states  with  equal  distinctness  that 
Gospels  used  by  Gnostic  sects  had  the  reading  of  Justin"  (p.  411).  Now 
Irenaeus  nowhere  states  any  such  thing.  Irenaeus  nowhere  speaks,  nor  does  any 
other  ancient  writer,  of  a  Gospel  of  the  Marcosians.  If  this  sect  had  set  up 
a  Gospel  {i.e.,  a  history  of  Christ's  ministry)  of  its  own,  in  opposition  to  the 
Four  Gospels  received  by  the  whole  Christian  Church  in  the  time  of  Irenaeus, 
we  should  have  had  unequivocal  evidence  of  the  fact.  The  denunciations  of 
Marcion  for  mutilating  the  Gospel  of  Luke  show  how  such  a  work  would  have 
been  treated.  Irenaeus  is  indignant  that  the  Valentinians  should  give  to 
"  a  recent  work  of  their  own  composition "  the  name  of  "  The  Gospel  of  the 
Truth"  or  "The  True  Gospel"  (Hcsr.  iii.  11.  §9);  but  this  was  in  all  prob- 
ability a  doctrinal  or  speculative,  not  an  historical  work.  *  The  Valentinians 
received  our  four  Gospels  without  controversy,  and  argued  from  them  in  sup- 
port of  their  doctrines  as  best  they  could.  (See  Irenaeus,  //ar.  i.  cc.  7,  8,  for 
numerous  examples  of  their  arguments  from  the  Gospels;  and  compare  iii.  ii. 
§  7  ;  12.  §  12 ;  and  Tertull.  PrcEscr.  c.  38.) 

Correcting  this  fundamental  error  of  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion,  the 
facts  which  he  himself  states  respecting  the  various  forms  in  which  this  passage 
is  quoted  by  writers  who  unquestionably  used  our  four  Gospels  as  their  sole  or 
main  authority,  are  sufficient  to  show  the  groundlessness  of  his  conclusion.  But 
for  the  sake  of  illustrating  the  freedom  of  the  Christian  Fathers  in  quotation, 
and  the  falsity  of  the  premises  on  which  this  writer  reasons,  I  will  exhibit  the 
facts  somewhat  more  fully  than  they  have  been  presented  elsewhere,  though 
the  quotations  of  this  passage  have  been  elaborately  discussed  by  Credner,t 
Semisch,J  Hilgenfeld,||  Volckmar,**  and  Westcott.tt  Of  these  discussions 
those  by  Semisch  and  Volckmar  are  particularly  valuable. 

I  will  now  notice  all  the  variations  of  Justin  from  the  text  of  our  Gospels 
in  this  passage  (see  above),  comparing  them  with  those  found  in  other  writers. 
The  two  most  important  (Nos.  3  and  4)  will  be  examined  last. 

I.  izapadti^oTcu  for  mipe666r]  is  wholly  unimportant.     It  is  found  in  Luke  x.  22 

*  See  Norton,  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  iii.  227  f. ;  Westcott,  Canon  o/the  N.  T.,  4th  ed., 
p.  297  f. ;  Lipsius,  art.  Gospels,  Apocryphal,  in  Smith  and  Wace's  Diet,  of  Christian  Biog.,  vol. 
ii.  (1880),  p.  717. 

t  Beitrdge  zur  Einl.  in  die  biblischen  Schriften  (1832),  i.  pp.  248-251. 

X  Die  apostoL  DenkvAirdigkeiten  des  Mdrt.  jfustinus  (1848),  pp.  364-370. 

II  Kritiscke  Untersuchungen  ilSer  die  Evangelien  JustirCs,  u.  s.  w.  (1850),  pp.  201-206. 
**Das  Evang.  Marcions  (1852),  pp.  75-80.     I  follow  the  title  in  spelling  "Volckmar." 

\\  Canon  of  the  N.  T.,  4th  ed.  (1875),  pp.  133-135.  See  also  Sanday,  The  Gospels  in  the 
Second  Century,  pp.  132,  133,  and  chaps,  ii.,  iv.,  vi. 


93 

in  the  uncial  MSS.  K  and  IT,  the  cursives  60,  253,  p*",  w»cr,  three  of  Colbert's 
MSS.  (see  Wetstein  in  loc.  and  his  Prolegom.  p.  48),  and  in  Hippolytus  {^Noe't. 
c.  6),  not  heretofore  noticed. 

2.  "The  Father  "for  "wy/  Father," //ov  being  omitted,  is  equally  trivial;  so 
in  the  Sinaitic  MS.  and  the  cursive  71  in  Matthew,  and  in  Luke  the  Codex 
Bezae  (D),  with  some  of  the  best  MSS.  of  the  Old  Latin  and  Vulgate  versions, 
and  other  authorities  (see  Tischendorf),  also  Hippolytus  as  above. 

5.  The  omission  of  riq  emyivuaKei  or  its  equivalent  in  the  second  clause  is 
found  in  the  citation  of  the  Marcosians  in  Irenaeus  (i.  20.  §  3),  other  Gnostics 
in  Irenaeus  (iv.  6.  §  i),  and  in  Iren^us  himself  three  times  (ii.  6.  §  i ;  iv.  6.  §§3, 
7,  but  no^  §1).  It  occurs  twice  in  Clement  of  Alexandria  (P(rd.  i.  9,  p.  150 
ed.  Potter;  Strom,  i.  28,  p.  425),  once  in  Origen  (^Cels.  vi.  17,  p.  643),  once  in 
Athanasius  {Orat.  cont.  Arian.  iii.  c  46,  p.  596),  6  times  in  Epiphanius 
{Ancor.  c.  67,  p.  71,  repeated  Har.  Ixxiv.  4,  p.  891 ;  c.  73,  p.  78,  repeated  liter. 
Ixxiv.  10,  p.  898;  and  liter.  Ixiv.  9,  p.  643;  Ixxvi.  7,  29,  32,  pp.  943,  977,  981); 
once  in  Chrysostom  (In/oan.  Horn.  Ix.  §1,  Opp.  viii.  353  (404)  A,  ed.  Montf.), 
once  in  Pseudo-Cyril  (De  Trin.  c  i),  once  in  Maximus  Confessor  (SchoL  in 
Dion.  Areop.  de  div.  Nom.  c.  i.  §  2,  in  Migne,  Patrol.  Gr.  iv.  189),  once  in 
Joannes  Damascenus  {De  Fide  Orth.  i.  i)  and  twice  in  Georgius  Pachy- 
MERES  {Paraphr.  in  Dion.  Areop.  de  div.  Nom.  c.  i,  §1,  and  de  myst.  Theol.  c 
5;  Migne,  iii.  613,  1061).  It  is  noticeable  that  the  Clementine  Homilies 
(xvii.  4;  xviii.  4,  13  bis,  20)  do  not  here  agree  with  Justin. 

6.  There  is  no  difference  between  o\q  av,  '■'■they  to  whomsoever,"  and  w  dv  (or 
fdv),  "he  to  whomsoever,"  so  far  as  the  sense  is  concerned.  The  plural,  which 
Justin  uses,  is  found  in  the  Clementine  Homilies  5  times  (xvii.  4;  xviii.  4, 
13  bis,  20),  and  Iren>«us  5  times  {Hisr.  ii.  6.  §  i ;  iv.  6.§§  3,  4,  7,  and  so  the 
Syriac ;  7.  §3).  The  singular  is  used  in  the  citations  given  by  Irenaeus  from  the 
Marcosians  (i.  20.  §  3)  and  "  those  who  would  be  wiser  than  the  Apostles,"  as 
well  as  in  his  own  express  quotation  from  Matthew  (Hcer.  iv.  6.  §  i) ;  and  so  by 
the  Christian  Fathers  generally. 

7.  The  next  variation  (olf  di'  d  vlbq)  aTroKa?.vil'y  for  (ioi'Xrp-ai  aTroKa?.vipat.  is  a 
natural  shortening  of  the  expression,  which  we  find  in  the  citation  of  the  Mar- 
cosians (Iren.  i.  20.  §  3)  and  in  Iren^^us  himself  5  times  (ii.  6.  §  i ;  iv.  6.  §§  3,  4, 
7,  and  so  the  Syriac;  7.  §  3) ;  in  Tertullian  twice  (Marc.  iv.  25  ;  Prcescr.  c.  21), 
and  perhaps  in  Marcion's  mutilated  Luke;  in  Clement  of  Alexandria 
5  times  (Cohort,  i.  10,  p.  10 ;  Peed.  i.  5,  p.  109;  Strom.  \.  28,  p.  425;  v.  13,  p.  697 ; 
vii.  18,  p.  901;  —  Quis  dives,  etc.,  c.  8,  p.  939,  is  a  mere  allusion);  Origen  4 
times  (Cels.  vi.  17,  p.  643 ;  vii.  44,  p.  726 ;  in  Joan.  tom.  i.  c.  42,  p.  45 ;  torn,  xxxii. 
c  18,  p.  450) ;  the  Synod  of  Antioch  against  Paul  of  Samosata  (Kouth,  RelL 
sacrce,  ed.  alt.  iii.  290);  Eusebius  or  Marcellus  in  Eusebius  3  times  (Eccl. 
Theol.  i.  1 5, 16,  pp.  76"^,  77  ^,  a-^OKa/.vrpEi ;  £cl.  proph.  i.  12  [Migne,  Patrol.  Gr.  xxii. 
col.  1065],  a-oKaXvipij) ;  Athanasius  4  or  5  times  (Decret.  Nic.  Syn.  c.  12,  Opp. 
i.  218  ed.  Bened. ;  Orat.  cont.  Arian.  i.  c.  12,  p.  416;  c.  39,  p.  443;  iii.  c.  46,  p. 
596,  in  the  best  MSS.;  Serm.  maj.  de  Fide,  c.  27,  in  Montf.  Coll.  nova,  ii.  14); 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem  twice  (Cat.  vi.  6;  x.  i);  Epiphanius  4  times  (Amor.  c. 
(fj,  p.  71,  repeated  Hcer.  Ixxiv.  4,  p.  891,  but  here  aTOKa'/.vTTTti  or  --i);  H(er.  Ixv. 
6,  p.  613;  and  without  d  v'loq,  Hcer.  Ixxvi.  7,  p.  943;  c.  29,  p.  977) ;  Basil  the 
Great  (Adv.  Etmom.  v.  Opp.  i.  311  (441)  A);  Cyril  of  Alexandria  3  times 
Thes.  Opp.  V.  131,  149;   Cont.  Julian,  viii.  Opp.  vi.  b.  p.  270). 


94 

All  of  these  variations  are  obviously  unimportant,  and  natural  in  quoting  from 
memory,  and  the  extent  to  vi^hich  they  occur  in  writers  who  unquestionably  used 
our  Gospels  as  their  sole  or  main  authority  shows  that  their  occurrence  in  Justin 
affords  no  ground  for  supposing  that  he  did  not  also  so  use  them. 

We  will  then  turn  our  attention  to  the  two  variations  on  which  the  main  stress 
is  laid  by  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion.  He  greatly  exaggerates  their 
importance,  and  neglects  an  obvious  explanation  of  their  origin. 

3.  We  find  iyvu,  "knew,"  or  "hath  known,"  for  yivdjGKei  or  imyivcjaKei,  in  the 
Clementine  Homilies  6  times  (xvii.  4;  xviii.  4,  11,  13  6is,  20),  and  once  appar- 
ently in  the  Recognitions  (ii.  47,  novit);  twice  in  Tertullian  (Adv.  Marc.  ii. 
27  ;  Prascr.  c.  21) ;  in  CLEMENT  OF  Alexandria  6  times  {Cohort,  i.  10,  p.  10; 
Peed.  i.  5,  p.  109;  i.  8,  p.  142  ;  i.  9,  p.  150 ;  Strom,  i.  28,  p.  425 ;  v.  13,  p.  697  ;  — 
once  the  present,  ytvuaKzi,  Strom,  vii.  18,  p.  901 ;  and  once,  in  a  mere  allusion, 
eTriyivtJcicei,  Quis  dives,  etc.,  c.  8,  p.  939) ;  Origen  uniformly,  10  times  {0pp.  i.  440, 
643,  726;  ii.  537;  iv.  45,  234,  284,  315,  450  bis),  and  in  the  Latin  version  of  his 
writings  of  which  the  Greek  is  lost  novit  is  used  10  times,  including  Opp.  iii.  58, 
where  Jiovit  is  used  for  Matthew  and  scit  for  Luke ;  scit  occurs  also  Opp.  iv.  515. 
The  Synod  of  Antioch  versus  Paul  of  Samosata  has  it  once  (Routh,  Rell.  sacm, 
iii.  290);  Alexander  of  Alexandria  once  {Epist.  ad  Alex.  c.  5,  Migne,  Pair. 
Gr.  xviii.  556);  EusEBius  6  times  (Eccl.  Theol.  i.  12,  16,  pp.  72*=,  77^;  Dem. 
Evang.  iv.  3,  v.  i,  pp.  I49<',  216"^;  Ecl.proph.  i.  12,  Migne  xxii.  1065;  Hist. 
Eccl.  i.  2.  §2) ;  DiDYMUS  of  Alexandria  once  {De  Trin.  ii.  5,  p.  142);  Epipha- 
Nius  twice  [Htzr.  Ixv.  6,  p.  613;  Ixxiv.  10,  p.  898). —  Of  these  writers,  Alexander 
has  o16e  once ;  Eusebius  jivuGKei  or  eniyivdxjKei  3  times,  Didymus  yirucTKei  fol- 
lowed by  £TriyivG)GKec  3  times,  Epiphanius  has  olde  9  or  10  times,  and  it  is  found 
also  in  Basil,  Chrysostom,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria.  Marcellus  in  Eusebius 
(Eccl.  Theol.  i.  15,  16,  pp.  76*^,  78^)  wavers  between  oWe  (twice)  and  ycvooKei  or 
intyivcjaKEL  (once),  and  perhaps  eyvu  (c.  16,  p.  77^). 

4.  We  find  the  transposition  of  the  clauses,  "  No  one  knoweth  [or  knew] 
the  Father"  coming  first,  in  one  MS.  in  Matthew  (Matthaei's  d)  and  two  in  Luke 
(the  uncial  U  and  i  '<=''),  in  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian  as  its  text  is  given  in  the 
Armenian  version  of  Ephraem's  Commentary  upon  it,  translated  into  Latin  by 
Aucher,  and  published  by  G.  Moesinger  (Evangelii  concordantis  Expositio,  etc., 
Venet.  1876),*  the  Clementine  Homilies  5  times  (xvii.  4;  xviii.  4,  13  bis,  20), 
the  Marcosians  in  Irenaeus  (i.  20.  §3),  other  Gnostics  in  Irenaeus  (iv.  6.  §  i), 
and  IreNvEUs  himself  (ii.  6.  §  i ;  iv.  6.  §  3,  versus  §  i  and  §  7,  Lat.,  but  here  a 
Syriac  version  represented  by  a  MS.  of  the  6th  century,  gives  the  transposed 
form;  see  Harvey's  Irenaeus,  ii.  443),  Tertullian  once  (Adv.  Marc.  iv.  25), 
Origen  once  (De  Princip.  ii.  6.  §  i,  Opp.  i.  89,  in  a  Latin  version),  the  Synod 
of  Antioch  against  Paul  of  Samosata  (as  cited  above),  the  Marcionite  in 
Pseudo-Orig.  Dial,  de  recta  in  Deum  fide,  sect.  i.  Opp.  i.  817);  EUSEBIUS  4 
times  (Eccl.  Theol.  i.  12;  Dem.  Evang.  iv.  3,  v.  i ;  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  2.  §2),  Alexan- 
der of  Alexandria  once  (Epist.  ad  Alex.  c.  12,  Migne  xviii.  565) ;  Athanasius 
twice  (In  illud.  Omnia  mihi  tradita  sunt,  c.  5,  Opp.  i.  107  ;  Serm.  maj.  de  Fide,  c. 
27,  in  Montf.  Coll.  nova,  ii.  14),  Didymus  once  (De  Trin.  i.  26,  p.  72),  Epipha- 
nius 7  times,  or  9  times  if  the  passages  transferred  from  the  Ancoratus  are  reck- 
oned {Opp.  i.  766,  891,  898,  977,  981 ;  ii.  16,  19,  67,  73),  Chrysostom  once  (In 

*  This  reads  (pp.  117,  ai6),  "Nemo  novit  Patrem  nisi  Filius,  et  nemo  novit  Filium  nisi  Pater." 


95 

Ascens.,  etc.,  c.  14,  0pp.  iii.  771  (931)  ed.  Montf.),  Pseudo-Cyril  of  Alexan- 
dria once  (De  Trin.  c.  i,  Opp.  vi.  c.  p.  i),  Pseudo-Caesarius  twice  (,Dial. 
i.  resp.  3  and  20,  in  Migne  xxxviii.  861,  877),  Maximus  Confessor  once  {Sckol. 
in  Dion.  Areop.  de  div.  Nom.  c.  i.  §2,  in  Migne  iv.  189),  Joannes  Damas- 
CENUS  once  {De  Fide  Orth.  i.  i),  and  Georgius  Pachymeres  once  {Paraphr. 
in  Dion.  Areop.  de  div.  Nom.  c.  i.  §1,  in  Migne  iii.  613). 

This  transposition  is  found  in  MS.  b  of  the  Old  Latin,  and  some  of  the 
Latin  Fathers,  e.g.,  Phaebadius  {Cont.  Arian.  c.  10);  and  most  MSS.  of  the  Old 
Latin,  aijd  the  Vulgate,  read  ncrvit  in  Matthew  instead  of  scit  or  cognoscit,  which 
they  have  in  Luke ;  but  it  is  not  worth  while  to  explore  this  territory  here. 

It  is  manifest  from  this  presentation  of  the  facts  that  the  variations  to  which 
the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  attaches  so  much  importance, —  the  trans- 
position of  the  clauses,  and  the  use  of  the  past  tense  for  the  present, —  being  not 
peculiar  to  Justin  and  the  heretics,  but  found  in  a  multitude  of  the  Christian 
Fathers,  can  afford  no  proof  or  presumption  that  the  source  of  his  quotation 
was  not  our  present  Gospels  —  that  he  does  not  use  in  making  it  (Dial.  c.  100) 
the  term  "  the  Gospel "  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  is  used  by  his  later  con- 
temporaries. It  indeed  seems  probable  that  the  reading  eyvc^,  though  not  in  the 
MSS.  which  have  come  down  to  us,  had  already  found  its  way  into  some  MSS. 
of  the  second  century,  particularly  in  Matthew.  Its  almost  uniform  occurrence 
in  the  numerous  citations  of  the  passage  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen, 
and  the  reading  of  the  Old  Latin  MSS.  and  of  the  Vulgate,  favor  this  view. 
The  transposition  of  the  clauses  may  also  have  been  found  in  some  MSS.  of 
that  date,  as  we  even  now  find  its  existence  in  several  manuscripts.  But  it  is  not 
necessary  to  suppose  this ;  the  Fathers,  in  quoting,  make  such  transpositions 
with  great  freedom.  The  stress  laid  on  the  transposition  in  Supernatural  Relig- 
ion is  very  extravagant.  It  did  not  affect  the  sense,  but  merely  made  more 
prominent  the  knowledge  and  the  revelation  of  the  Father  by  Christ.  The 
importance  of  the  change  from  the  present  tense  to  the  past  is  also  preposter- 
ously exaggerated.  It  merely  expressed  more  distinctly  what  the  present  implied. 
Further,  these  variations  admit  of  an  easy  explanation.  In  preaching  Chris- 
tianity to  unbelievers,  special  emphasis  would  be  laid  on  the  fact  that  Christ 
had  come  to  give  men  a  true  knowledge  of  God,  of  God  in  his  paternal  char- 
acter. The  transposition  of  the  clauses  in  quoting  this  striking  passage,  which 
must  have  been  often  quoted,  would  thus  be  very  natural ;  and  so  would  be  the 
change  from  the  present  tense  to  the  past.  The  Gnostics,  moreover,  regarding 
the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  as  an  inferior  and  imperfect  being,  maintained 
that  the  true  God,  the  Supreme,  had  been  wholly  unknown  to  men  before  he 
was  revealed  by  Christ.  They  would,  therefore,  naturally  quote  the  passage  in 
the  same  way ;  and  the  variation  at  an  early  period  would  become  wide-spread. 
That  Irenasus  should  notice  a  difference  between  the  form  in  which  the  Gnostics 
quoted  the  text  and  that  which  he  found  in  his  own  copy  of  the  Gospels  is  not 
strange ;  but  there  is  nothing  in  what  he  says  which  implies  that  it  was  anything 
more  than  a  various  reading  or  corruption  of  the  text  of  Matthew  or  Luke ;  he 
nowhere  charges  the  Gnostics  with  taking  it  from  Gospels  peculiar  to  them- 
selves. It  is  their  interpretation  of  the  passage  rather  than  their  text  which  he 
combats.  The  change  of  order  further  occurs  frequently  in  writers  who  are 
treating  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  as  Athanasius,  Didymus,  Epiphanius.  Here 
the  occasion  seems  to  have  been  that  the  fact  that  Christ  alone  fully  knew  the 


96 

Father  was  regarded  as  proving  his  deity,  and  the  transposition  of  the  clauses 
gave  special  prominence  to  that  fact.  Another  occasion  was  the  circumstance 
that  when  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  mentioned  together  in  the  New  Testament, 
the  name  of  the  Father  commonly  stands  first ;  and  the  transposition  was  the 
more  natural  in  the  present  case,  because,  as  Semisch  remarks,  the  word 
"  Father  "  immediately  precedes. 

In  this  statement,  I  have  only  exhibited  those  variations  in  the  quotation  of 
this  text  by  the  Fathers  which  correspond  with  those  of  Justin.  These  give  a 
very  inadequate  idea  of  the  extraordinary  variety  of  forms  in  which  the  passage 
appears.  I  will  simply  observe,  by  way  of  specimen,  that,  while  Eusebius  quotes 
the  passage  at  least  eleven  times,  none  of  his  quotations  verbally  agree.  (See 
Cont.  Marcel,  i.  i,  p.  6*;  Ecd.  Theol.  i.  12,  15,  16  bis,  20,  pp.  72=,  76',  77"!, 
78»,88'i;  De7n.  Evang.  iv.  3,  v.  i,  pp.  149°,  216'^  ;  Comm.  in  Fs.  ex.;  Eel. 
proph.  i.  12  ;  Hist.  Eecl.  i.  2.  §  2.)  The  two  quotations  which  he  introduces  from 
Marcellus  ^Eccl.  Theol.  i.  15  and  16)  present  a  still  different  form.  In  three  of 
Eusebius's  quotations  for  t'l  iif/  o  Tzarijp  he  reads  d  /if/  6  /uovog  yevv^aag  avrbv  naryp 
{Eccl.  Theol.  i.  12,  p.  72<';  Dem.  Evang.  iv.  3,  p.  149°;  and  Hist.  Eecl.  i.  2.  §  2). 
If  this  were  found  in  Justin  Martyr,  it  would  be  insisted  that  it  must  have  come 
from  some  apocryphal  Gospel,  and  the  triple  recurrence  would  be  thought  to 
prove  it.*  The  variations  in  Epiphanius,  who  also  quotes  the  passage  eleven 
times  (not  counting  the  transfers  from  the  Attcoratus),  are  perhaps  equally 
remarkable.  PseudoC^sarius  quotes  it  thus  {Dial.  i.  resp.  3) :  Ovdelq  yap 
olSe  Tov  TTarepa  el  /xt/  6  vlog,  ovde  tov  vlov  tic  eTrlaraTai  el  fir)  6  izaTtjp.  But 
the  false  premises  from  which  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  reasons 
have  been  sufficiently  illustrated. 

This  Note  is  too  long  to  allow  the  discussion  of  some  points  which  need  a 
fuller  treatment.  I  will  only  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  list  of  passages 
in  our  Gospels  which  Irenaeus  (i.  20.  §  2)  represents  the  Marcosians  as  pervert- 
ing, there  is  one  which  presents  a  difficulty,  and  which  some  have  supposed  to 
be  taken  from  an  apocryphal  Gospel.  As  it  stands,  the  text  is  corrupt,  and  the 
passage  makes  no  sense.  Mr.  Norton  in  \ki&  first  edition  of  his  Genicineness  of  the 
Gospels  (1837),  vol.  i.  Addit.  Notes,  p.  ccxlii.,  has  given  a  plausible  conjectural 
emendation  of  the  text  in  Irenaeus,  which  serves  to  clear  up  the  difficulty.  For 
the  TToA/MKiq  iTre&iifiriaa  of  Irenaeus  he  would  read  7ro/l/lot  /cat  ETredvfiT/aav,  for  6elv, 
elvai  (so  the  old  Latin  version),  and  for  (ha  tov  hdc,  dm  tov  e povvToq.  The 
passage  then  becomes  a  modification  of  Matt.  xiii.  17.  Dr.  Westcott  (Canon 
of  the  N.  T,  4th  ed.,  p.  306)  proposes  iyrredbfujaav  for  iTredv/nTiaa,  without  being 
aware  that  his  conjecture  had  been  anticipated.  But  that  change  alone  does 
not  restore  sense  to  the  passage.  The  masterly  review  of  Credner's  hypothesis 
that  Justin's  Memoirs  were  the  so-called  "  Gospel  according  to  Peter,"  which 
contains  Mr.  Norton's  emendation  to  which  I  have  referred,  was  not  reprinted 
in  the  second  edition  of  his  work.  It  seemed  to  me,  therefore,  worth  while  to 
notice  it  here. 

*  Compare  Supernatural  RtligioH,  i.  341. 


97 

NOTE  B,    (See  p.  23.) 

ON   THE  TITLE,   "MEMOIRS   BY  the  APOSTLES." 

In  regard  to  the  use  of  the  article  here,  it  may  be  well  to  notice  the  points 
made  by  Hilgenfeld,  perhaps  the  ablest  and  the  fairest  of  the  German  critics 
who  regard  some  apocryphal  Gospel  or  Gospels  as  the  chief  source  of  Justin's 
quotations.  His  book  is  certainly  the  most  valuable  which  has  appeared  on 
that  side  of  the  question.* 

In  the  important  passage  {Dial.  c.  103),  in  which  Justin  says,  "  In  the 
Memoirs  which  I  affirm  to  have  been  composed  by  the  Apostles  of  Christ  and 
their  companions  («  ^///".  v-h  -uv  Ii-ugtoauv  airov  kuI  tuv  eKelvoic  Traixim/ni'Oij- 
cdvTDv  awTETaxf^ni),  it  is  written  that  sv/eat,  like  drops  of  blood  [or  "  clots," 
6p6ufioc\,  flowed  from  him  while  he  was  praying "  (comp.  Luke  xxii.  44),  and 
which  Semisch  very  naturally  compares,  as  regards  its  description  of  the 
Gospels,  with  a  striking  passage  of  Tertullian.t  Hilgenfeld  insists  — 

(i)  That  the  article  denotes  "the  collective  body"  {t/ie  Gesammtheit)  of  the 
Apostles  and  their  companions. 

(2)  "The  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles"  is  the  phrase  generally  used  by  Justin. 
This  might  indeed  be  justified  by  the  fact  that  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke 
were  regarded  as  founded  on  the  direct  communications  of  Apostles  or  sanc- 
tioned by  them;  but  this,  Hilgenfeld  saj's,  is  giving  up  the  sharp  distinction 
between  the  Gospels  as  written  two  of  them  by  Apostles  and  two  by  Apostolic 
men. 

(3)  The  fact  that  Justin  appeals  to  the  "  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles  "  for  inci- 
dents, like  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  which  are  recorded  by  only  one  apostle, 
"shows  clearly  the  utter  indefiniteness  of  this  form  of  expression."!  "Mani- 
festly, that  single  passage,"  namely,  the  one  quoted  above  (Dial.  c.  103),  "must 
be  explained  in  accordance  with  Justin's  general  use  of  language." 

Let  us  examine  these  points.  As  to  (i),  the  supposition  that  Justin  con- 
ceived of  his  "Memoirs"  as  "composed"  or  "written"  —  these  are  the  words 
he  uses  —  by  "the  collective  body"  of  the  Apostles  of  Christ  and  "the  col- 
lective body  "  of  their  companions  is  a  simple  absurdity. 

{2)  and  (3).  For  Justin's  purpose,  it  was  important,  and  it  was  sufficient,  to 
represent  the  "  Memoirs  "  to  which  he  appealed  as  resting  on  the  authority  of 
the  Apostles.  But  in  one  place  he  has  described  them  more  particularly ;  and 
it  is  simply  reasonable  to  say  that  the  more  general  expression  should  be 
interpreted  in  accordance  with  the  precise  description,  and  not,  as  Hilgenfeld 
strangely  contends,  the  reverse. 

*  See  his  Kritische  U titer suchungen  uber  die  EvangelUn  JustitCs,  der  clementinischen 
Hotnilien  und  Mar  don's  (Halle,  1850),  p.  13  fF. 

^A  dv.  Marc.  iv.  2 :  Constiiuimus  inprimis  evangelicum  instrumentum  apostolos  auctores 
habere.  .  .  .  Si  et  apostolicos,  non  tamen  solos,  sed  cum  apostolis  et  post  apostolos.  .  .  .  Denique 
nobis  fidem  ex  apostolis  loannes  et  Matthxus  insinuant,  ex  apostolicis  Lucas  et  Marcus 
instaurant. 

J  Hilgenfeld  also  refers  to  Justin  {Dial,  c  loi,  p.  328,  comp.  Apol.  i.  38)  for  a  passage  relating 
to  the  mocking  of  Christ  at  the  crucifixion,  which  Justin,  referring  to  the  "  Memoirs,"  describes 
"  in  a  form,"  as  he  conceives,  "  essentially  differing  from  all  our  canonical  Gospels."  To  me  it 
appears  that  the  agreement  is  essential,  and  the  difference  of  slight  importance  and  easily 
explained ;  but  to  discuss  the  matter  here  would  be  out  of  place,  and  would  carry  us  too  far. 


98 

(3)  The  fact  that  Justin  appeals  to  the  "Memoirs  by  the  Apostles"  for  an 
incident  which  is  related  by  only  one  Apostle  is  readily  explained  by  the  fact 
that  he  gives  this  title  to  the  Gospels  considered  collectively,  just  as  he  once 
designates  them  as  evaYi't7ua,  "Gospels,"  and  twice  as  to  evayye/uov,  "the 
Gospel."  The  usage  of  the  Christian  Fathers  in  quoting  is  entirely  analogous. 
They  constantly  cite  passages  as  contained  "in  the  Gospels "  which  are  found 
only  in  one  Gospel,  simply  because  "  the  Gospels  "  was  a  term  used  interchange- 
ably with  "the  Gospel,"  to  denote  the  four  Gospels  conceived  of  as  one  book. 
For  examples  of  this  use  of  the  plural,  see  the  note  to  p.  22.  To  the  instances 
there  given,  many  might  easily  be  added. 

Hilgenfeld,  in  support  of  his  view  of  the  article  here,  cites  the  language  of 
Justin  where,  in  speaking  of  the  new  birth,  he  says,  "And  the  reason  for  this 
we  have  learned  from  tAe  Apostles"  [Apol.  i.  61).  Here  it  seems  to  me  not 
improbable  that  Justin  had  in  mind  the  language  of  Christ  as  recorded  by  the 
Apostles  John  and  Matthew  in  John  iii.  6,  7,  and  Matt,  xviii.  3,  4.  That  he  had 
no  particular  Apostles  or  apostolic  writings  in  view — that  by  "the  Apostles" 
he  meant  vaguely  "the  collective  body  of  the  Apostles"  does  not  appear  likely. 
The  statement  must  have  been  founded  on  something  which  he  had  read 
somewhere. 

NOTE  C.  (See  p.  78.) 
JUSTIN   MARTYR  AND  THE   "GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  THE  HEBREWS." 

After  remarking  that  the  "  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  "  was  "  almost 
universally  regarded  in  the  first  centuries  as  the  Hebrew  original  of  our  canon- 
ical Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,"  that  Greek  versions  of  it  "must  have  existed  at  a 
very  early  date,"  and  that  "  at  various  times  and  in  different  circles  it  took  very 
different  shapes,"  Lipsius  observes:  "The  fragments  preserved  in  the  Greek 
by  Epiphanius  betray  very  clearly  their  dependence  on  our  canonical  Gospels. 
. .  .  The  Aramaic  fragments  also  contain  much  that  can  be  explained  and  under- 
stood only  on  the  hypothesis  that  it  is  a  recasting  of  the  canonical  text. .  . . 
The  narrative  of  our  Lord's  baptism  (Epiphan.  Har.  xxx.  13),  with  its  threefold 
voice  from  heaven,  is  evidently  a  more  recent  combination  of  older  texts,  of 
which  the  first  is  found  in  the  Gospels  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke;  the  second  in 
the  text  of  the  Cambridge  Cod.  Bezce  at  St.  Luke  iii.  22,  in  Justin  Martyr  {Dial. 
c  Tryphon.  88,  103),  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus  (Padag.  i.  6,  p.  113,  Potter); 
the  third  in  our  canonical  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew.  And  this  very  narrative  may 
suffice  to  prove  that  the  so-called  '  Hebrew '  text  preserved  by  St.  Jerome  is  by 
no  means  preferable  to  that  of  our  canonical  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  and  even 
less  original  than  the  Greek  text  quoted  by  Epiphanius." *  "The  attempt  to 
prove  that  Justin  Martyr  and  the  Clementine  Homilies  had  one  extra-canonical 

•Smith  and  Wace's  Dkt.  0/  Christian  Biog.,  vol.  ii.  (1880),  p.  710.  Many  illustrations  are 
here  given  of  the  fact  that  most  of  the  quotations  which  have  come  down  to  us  from  the  "  Gospel 
of  the  Hebrews  "  belong  to  a  later  period,  and  represent  a  later  stage  of  theological  develop- 
ment, than  our  canonical  Gospels.  Mangold  agrees  with  Lipsius.  See  the  note  in  his  edition  of 
Bleek's  EitiUitung  in  das  jV.  T.,  3*  Aufi.  (1875),  p.  132  f.  Dr.  E.  A.  Abbott,  art.  Gospels  in 
the  ninth  ed.  of  the  Encyclopsedia  Britannica  (x.  818,  note),  takes  the  same  view.  He  finds  no 
evidence  that  Justin  Martyr  made  any  use  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews. 


99 

authority  common  to  them  both,  either  in  the  Gospel  of  the  H.'brews  or  in  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Peter, .  .  .  has  altogether  failed.  It  is  only  in  the  rarest  cases  that 
they  literally  agree  in  their  deviations  from  the  text  of  our  Gospels ;  they  differ 
in  their  citations  as  much,  for  the  most  part,  one  from  the  other  as  they  do  from 
the  text  of  the  synoptical  evangelists,  even  in  such  cases  when  one  or  the  other 
repeatedly  quotes  the  same  passage,  and  each  time  in  the  same  words.  Only  in 
very  few  cases  is  the  derivation  from  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  probable,  as  in 
the  saying  concerning  the  new  birth  (Justin  M.  Apol.  i.  6i ;  Clem.  Homilies,  xi. 
26;  Recogn.  vi.  9) ;  ...  in  most  cases  ...  it  is  quite  enough  to  assume  that  the 
quotations  were  made  from  memory,  and  so  account  for  the  involuntary  con- 
fusion of  evangelic  texts."     {Ibid.  p.  712.) 

Mr.  E.  B.  Nicholson,  in  his  elaborate  work  on  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews  (Lond.  1879),  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  "there  are  no  proofs  that 
Justin  used  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  at  all"  (p.  135).  He  also 
observes,  "There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  authorship  of  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews  was  attributed  to  the  Apostles  generally  in  the  2d  or 
even  the  3d  cent.  Irenaeus  calls  it  simply  'that  Gospel  which  is  according  to 
Matthew '"  (p.  134). 

Holtzmann  in  the  eighth  volume  of  Bunsen's  Bibelwerk  (1866)  discusses  at 
length  the  subject  of  apocryphal  Gospels.  He  comes  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  "Gospel  of  the  Hebrews"  or  "of  the  Nazarenes"  was  an  Aramaic  redac- 
tion (Bearbeitung)  of  our  Matthew,  executed  in  an  exclusively  Jewish-Christian 
spirit,  making  some  use  of  Jewish-Christian  traditions,  but  presupposing  the 
Synoptic  and  the  Pauline  literature.  It  was  probably  made  in  Palestine  for  the 
Jewish-Christian  churches  some  time  in  the  second  century  (p.  547).  The 
Gospel  of  the  Ebionites,  for  our  knowledge  of  which  we  have  to  depend  almost 
wholly  on  Epiphanius,  a  very  untrustworthy  writer,  Holtzmann  regards  as  "  a 
Greek  recasting  (Ueberarbeitung)  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  with  peculiar  Jewish- 
Christian  traditions  and  theosophic  additions  "  (p.  553). 

Professor  Drummond,  using  Kirchhofer's  Quellensammlung,  has  compared 
the  twenty-two  fragments  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  there  col- 
lected (including  those  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites)  with  Justin's  citations 
from  or  references  to  the  Gospels,  of  which  he  finds  about  one  hundred  and 
seventy.     I  give  his  result :  — 

"  With  an  apparent  exception  to  be  noticed  presently,  not  one  of  the  twenty- 
two  quotations  from  the  lost  Gospel  is  found  among  these  one  hundred  and 
seventy.  But  this  is  not  all.  While  thirteen  deal  with  matters  not  referred  to 
in  Justin,  nine  admit  of  comparison;  and  in  these  nine  instances  not  only  does 
Justin  omit  everything  that  is  characteristic  of  the  Hebrew  Gospel,  but  in 
some  points  he  distinctly  differs  from  it,  and  agrees  with  the  canonical  Gospels. 
There  is  an  apparent  exception.  Justin  quotes  the  voice  from  heaven  at  the 
baptism  in  this  form,  'Thou  art  my  son  ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.'  'This 
day  have  I  begotten  thee'  is  also  in  the  Ebionite  Gospel;*  but  there  it  is 
awkwardly  appended  to  a  second  saying,  thus:  'Thou  art  my  beloved  Son;  in 
thee  was  I  well  pleased;  and  again.  This  day  have  I  begotten  thee';  —  so  that 
the  passage  is  quite  different  from  Justin's,  and  has  the  appearance  of  being  a 
later  patchwork.    Justin's  form  of  quotation  is  still  the  reading  of  the  Codex 

•  See  Epiphanius,  Har.  xxx.  13 ;  Nicholson,  TAe  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  p.  40 
fif.—  E.  A. 


lOO 

Bezje  in  Luke,  and,  according  to  Augustine,  was  found  in  good  MSS.,  though 
it  was  said  not  to  be  in  the  older  ones.  (See  Tischend.  in  loco.)  *  One  other 
passage  is  appealed  to.  Justin  says  that,  when  Jesus  went  down  upon  the  water, 
a  fire  was  kindled  in  the  Jordan, — Trip  avTj<pdr]  iv  tu  'lop6avy.  The  Ebionite 
Gospel  relates  that,  when  Jesus  came  up  from  the  water,  immediately  a  great 
light  shone  round  the  place, —  tin?);?  TrepciXafiTpe  tuv  tottov  ^cjf  /liya.  This  fact 
is,  I  believe,  the  main  proof  that  Justin  used  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  that  we  may  therefore  have  recourse  to  it,  whenever  he  differs 
verbally  from  the  existing  Gospels.  Considering  that  the  events  recorded  are 
not  the  same,  that  they  are  said  to  have  happened  at  different  times,  and  that 
the  two  quotations  do  not  agree  with  one  another  in  a  single  word,  this  argu- 
ment cannot  be  considered  very  convincing,  even  by  those  who  do  not  require 
perfect  verbal  accuracy  in  order  to  identify  a  quotation.  But,  further,  the 
author  of  the  anonymous  Liber  do  Rebaptismate  says  that  this  event  was 
related  in  an  heretical  work  entitled  Pauli  Praedicatio,  and  that  it  was  not 
found  in  any  Gospel :  '  Item  cum  baptizaretur,  ignem  super  aquam  esse  visum; 
quod  in  evangelio  nullo  est  scriptum.'  (Routh,  Rel.  Sac.  v.  pp.  325,  326  [c. 
14,  Routh;  c.  17,  Hartel.])  Of  course  the  latter  statement  may  refer  only  to 
the  canonical  Gospels."t  To  this  it  may  be  added  that  a  comparison  of  the 
fuller  collection  of  fragments  of  "the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews"  given 
by  Hilgenfeld  or  Nicholson  (the  latter  makes  out  a  list  of  thirty-three  frag- 
ments) would  be  still  less  favorable  to  the  supposition  that  Justin  made  use  of 
this  Gospel. 

In  the  quotations  which  I  have  given  from  these  independent  writers,  I  have 
not  attempted  to  set  forth  in  full  their  views  of  the  relation  of  the  original 
Hebrew  Gospel  to  our  Greek  Matthew,  still  less  my  own ;  but  enough  has  been 
said  to  show  how  little  evidence  there  is  that  the  "Gospel  of  the  Hebrews" 
in  one  form  or  another  either  constituted  Justin's  "  Memoirs,"  or  was  the 
principal  source  from  which  he  drew  his  knowledge  of  the  life  of  Christ. 
While  I  find  nothing  like /r<><7/" that  Justin  made  use  of  any  apocryphal  Gospel, 
the  question  whether  he  may  in  a  few  instances  have  done  so  is  wholly 
unimportant.  Such  a  use  would  not  in  his  case,  any  more  than  in  that  of  the 
later  Fathers,  as  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Jerome,  imply  that  he  placed 
such  a  work  on  a  level  with  our  four  Gospels. 

The  notion  that  Justin  used  mainly  the  "Gospel  according  to  Peter,"  which 
is  assumed,  absolutely  without  evidence,  to  have  been  a  form  of  the  "  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews,"  rests  almost  wholly  on  the  hypothesis,  for  which 
there  is  also  not  a  particle  of  evidence,  that  this  Gospel  was  mainly  used  by  the 

•It  is  the  reading  also  (in  laike  iii.  22)  of  the  best  MSS.  of  the  old  Latin  version  or  versions, 
of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Methodius,  Lactantius,  Juvencus,  Hilary  of  Poitiers  in  several 
places,  Hilary  the  deacon  (if  lie  is  the  author  of  Quastioties  Vet.  ei  Nov.  Test.),  and  Faustus  the 
Manichxan  ;  and  Augustine  quotes  it  once  without  remark.  It  seems  to  be  presupposed  in  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions  (ii.  32);  see  the  note  of  Cotelier  in  loc.  It  is  altogether  probable 
therefore  that  Justin  found  it  in  his  MS.  of  Luke.  The  words  (from  Ps.  ii.  7)  being  repeatedly 
applied  to  Christ  in  the  N.T.  (Acts  jtiii.  33  ;  Heb.  i.  5 ;  v.  5),  the  substitution  might  easily 
occur  through  confusion  of  memory,  or  from  the  words  having  been  noted  in  the  margin  of  MSS. 
—  E.  A. 

t  Theol.  Revie7v,  October,  1875,  xii.  482  f.,  note.  The  Liher  tfe  Reba/>tismaie\s  usually puly 
ished  with  the  works  of  Cyprian. 


lOl 

author  of  the  Clementine  Homilies.  The  agreement  between  certain  quotations 
of  Justin  and  those  found  in  the  Clementine  Homilies  in  their  variations  from 
the  text  of  our  Gospels  is  supposed  to  prove  that  Justin  and  Clement  drew 
from  a  common  source ;  namely,  this  "  Gospel  according  to  Peter,"  from  which 
they  are  then  imagined  to  have  derived  the  great  body  of  their  citations.  The 
facts  stated  in  the  quotation  I  have  given  above  from  Lipsius,  who  has 
expressed  himself  none  too  strongly,  are  enough  to  show  the  baselessness  of 
this  hypothesis ;  but  it  may  be  well  to  say  a  few  words  about  the  alleged  agree- 
ment in  five  quotations  between  Justin  and  the  Clementines  in  their  variations 
from  the  text  of  our  Gospels.  These  are  all  that  have  been  or  can  be  adduced 
in  argument  with  the  least  plausibility.  The  two  most  remarkable  of  them, 
namely,  Matt.  xi.  27  (par.  with  Luke  x.  22)  and  John  iii.  3-5,  have  already  been 
fully  discussed.*  In  two  of  the  three  remaining  cases,  an  examination  of  the 
various  readings  in  Tischendorf's  last  critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament 
(1869-72),  and  of  the  parallels  in  the  Christian  Fathers  cited  by  Semisch  and 
others,  will  show  at  once  the  utter  worthlessness  of  the  argument,  t 

The  last  example  alone  requires  remark.  This  is  Matt.  xxv.  41,  "Depart 
from  me,  accursed,  into  the  eternal  fire,  which  is  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his 
angels."  This  is  quoted  by  Justin  as  follows :  "  Go  ye  into  the  outer  darkness, 
which  the  Father  prepared  for  Satan  and  his  angels."  {Dial.  c.  76.)  The 
Clementine  Homilies  (xix.  2)  agrees  with  Justin,  except  that  it  reads  "the  devil" 
for  "  Satan." 

Let  us  examine  the  variations  from  the  text  of  Matthew,  and  see  whether 
they  justify  the  conclusion  that  the  quotations  were  taken  from  a  different 
Gospel. 

The  first  is  the  substitution  of  iivrdyfre,  which  I  have  rendered  "Go  ye,"  for 
TTo/jei'fffflf,  translated  in  the  common  version  "depart."  The  two  words,  how- 
ever, differ  much  less,  as  they  are  used  in  Greek,  than  go  and  depart  in  English. 
The  common  rendering  of  both  is  "go."  We  have  here  merely  the  substitu- 
tion of  one  synonymous  word  for  another,  which  is  very  frequent  in  quotations 
from  memory.  Tischendorf  cites  for  the  reading  v~dyere  here  the  Sinaitic  MS. 
and  HiPPOLYTUS  {De  Antichr.  c.  65) ;  so  Origen  on  Rom.  viii.  38  in  Cramer's 
Catena  (p.156)  referred  to  in  the  Addenda  to  Tregelles's  Greek  Test.;  to  which 
maybe  added  T)\v>Yyi\z?>  {Adv.  Manich.  c.  13,  Migne  xxxix.  1104),  AsTERlUS 
{Orat.  ii.  in  Ps.  v.,  Migne  xl.  412),  Theodoret  {In  Ps.  Ixi.  13,  IVf.  Ixxx.  1336), 
and  Basil  of  Seleucia  {Orat.  xl.  §  2,  M.  Ixxxv.  461).  Chrysostom  in  quoting 
the  passage  substitutes  aire'/BETt  for  ■nopeveaOe  eight  times  {0/>/>.  1.  27''  ed.  Montf. ; 
285';  v.  256=;  xi.  29C;  674^;  695<*;  xii.  291'';  727*);  and  so  Epiphanius  once 
{Ifier.  Ixvi.  80,  p.  700),  and  Pseudo-Cassarius  {£>ia/.  iii.  res/>.  140,  Migne  xxxviii. 
1061).     In  the  Latin  Fathers  we  find  discedite,  ite,  abite,  and  recedite. 

*  See,  for  the  former,  Note  A ;  for  the  latter,  p.  29  ff . 

tThe  two  cases  are  (a)  Matt.  xix.  16-18  (par.  Mark  x.  17  ff.;  Luke  xviii.  18  ff.)  compared 
with  Justin,  Z)«i/.  c.  101,  and  .4 /So/,  i.  16,  and  Clem.  Horn,  xviii.  1,  3  (comp.  iii.  57;  xvii.  4). 
Here  Justin's  two  quotations  differ  widely  from  each  other,  and  neither  agrees  closely  with  the 
Qementines.  (3)  Matt.  v.  34,  37,  compared  with  Justin,  Apol.  i.  16;  Clem.  Horn.  iii.  55;  xix.  a; 
also  James  v.  12,  where  see  Tischendorf's  note.  Here  the  variation  is  natural,  of  slight  impor- 
tance, and'paralleled  in  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Epiphanius.  On  (a)  see  Semisch,  p.  371  ff. ; 
Hilgenfeld,  p.  220  ff. ;  Westcott,  Canon,  p.  153  f. ;  on  (6)  Semisch,  p.  375  £. ;  Hilgenfeld,  p.  175  f. ; 
Westcott,  p.  15a  f. ;  Sanday,  p.  132  f. 


102 

The  second  variation  consists  in  the  omission  of  an'kiiov,  "from  me,"  and  {pi) 
mr^pafiivoi,  "  (ye)  accursed."  This  is  of  no  account  whatever,  being  a  natural 
abridgment  of  the  quotation,  and  very  common  in  the  citations  of  the  passage 
by  the  Fathers;  Chrysostom,  for  example,  omits  the  "from  me "  fifteen  times, 
the  "accursed"  thirteen  times,  and  both  together  ten  times  (Oj>J>.  i.  103'^;  v. 
191=;  473*^;  vii.  296^;  571I;  viii_  2^5d;  ix.  679";  709=;  x.  138b).  The  omission 
is  still   more  frequent  in  the  very  numerous  quotations  of  Augustine. 

The  third  and  most  remarkable  variation  is  the  substitution  of  rb  oKdrog  to 
EiGiTEpov,  "the  outer  darkness,"  or  "the  darkness  without,"  for  to  irvp  t6 
aluviov,  "  the  eternal  fire."  The  critical  editors  give  no  various  reading  here  in 
addition  to  the  quotations  of  Justin  and  the  Clementines,  except  that  of  the 
cursive  MS.  No.  40  (collated  by  Wetstein),  which  has,  as  first  written,  to  nvp  to 
t^uTepov,  "  the  outer  fire,"  for  "  the  eternal  fire."  It  has  not  been  observed,  I 
believe,  that  this  singular  reading  appears  in  a  quotation  of  the  passage  by 
Chrysostom  {Ad  Theodor.  lapsum,  i.  9),  according  to  the  text  of  Morel's  edition, 
supported  by  at  least  two  MSS.  (See  Montfaucon's  note  in  his  edition  of 
Chrysost.  0pp.  i.  11.)  This,  as  the  more  difficult  reading,  may  be  the  true  one, 
though  Savile  and  Montfaucon  adopt  instead  ai(l)viov,  "  eternal,"  on  the  authority 
of  four  MSS.*  But  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  noticed  that  Chrysostom 
in  two  quotations  of  this  passage  substitutes  the  "outer  darkness"  for  "the 
eternal  fire."  So  De  Virg.  c.  24,  Opp.  i.  285  (349)*,  ane'/SeTE  jdp,  (pT/alv,  an'  ifiov 
fif  TO  oKOTog  TO  E^uTEpov  TO  TjToifxad/iEvov  K.  T.  A.  Again,  De  I'a-uit.  vii.  6,  Opp.  ii. 
339  (399)^>  '"^opEVEadE,  01  KaTTjpafiEvoi,  s'lg  TO  okStoq  to  E^uTEpov  K.  T.  1.  Wc  find  the 
same  reading  in  Basil  the  Great,  Horn,  in  Luc.  xii.  i8,  Opp.  ii.  50  {jo)^;  in 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  in  a  Syriac  translation  {Fragmenta  Syriaca,  ed. 
E.  Sachau,  Lips.  1869,  p.  12,  or  p.  19  of  the  Syriac),  "discedite  a  me  in  tenebras 
exteriores  quae  paratae  sunt  diabolo  ejusque  angelis";  in  Theodoret  {In  Ps. 
Ixi.  13,  Migne  Ixxx.  1336),  who  quotes  the  passage  in  connection  with  vv.  32-34 
as  follows :  "  Go  ye  (iTrdyere)  into  the  outer  darkness,  where  is  the  loud  crying 
and  gnashing  of  teeth";  t  in  Basil  of  Seleucia  substantially  {Orat.  xl.  §  2,  M. 
Ixxxv.  461),  virayzTE  elf  to  aKdTog  to  ^  f  w,  to  I'/Toi/iaa/itvov  k.  t.  ?..,  and  in 
"Simeon  Cionita,"  /.<?.  Symeon  Stylites  the  younger  {Serm.  xxi.  c.  2,  in  Mai's 
Nova  Patrum  Biblioth.  torn.  viii.  {1871),  pars  iii.  p.  104),  "Depart,  ye  accursed, 
into  the  outer  darkness;  there  shall  be  the  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth."  t 
Compare  SULPICIUS  Severus,  Epist.  i.  ad  Sororem,  c.  7  :  "  Ite  in  tenebras 
exteriores,  ubi  erit  fietus  et  stridor  dentium "  (Migne  xx.  227*).  See  also 
Antonius  Magnus,  Ahhzs,  Epist.  xx.  (Migne,  Patrol.  Gr.  xl.  1058),  "Recedite 
a  me,  maledicti,  in  ignem  a;ternum,  ubi  est  fletus  et  stridor  dentium." 

The  use  of  the  expression  "the  outer  darkness"  in  Matt.  viii.  12,  xxii.  13, 
and  especially  xxv.  30,  in  connection  with  "  the  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth," 
and  the  combination  of  the  latter  also  with  "  the  furnace  of  fire  "  in  Matt.  xiii. 
42,  50,  would  naturally  lead  to  such  a  confusion  and  intermixture  of  different 
passages   in  quoting  from    memory,   or   quoting   freely,   as  we  see  in  these 

•  Since  the  above  was  written,  I  have  noticed  this  reading  in  Philippus  Solitarius,  Dioptra 
Rei  Christiana,  iv.  20  (Migne,  Patrol.  Gr.  cxxvii.  875,  b  c):  "  Abite  a  me  procul,  longe, 
maledicti,  in  ignem  exteriorem,  qui  praeparatus  est  diabolo  et  angelis  ejus." 

tThe  last  clause  reads  ottow  b  ftpvyfiog  Kal  6  6h)7iiryfj6c  rwv  oMvtuv,  but  the  words 
Ppvyftdg  and  o?joXvyfi6c  seem  to  have  been  transposed  through  the  mistake  of  a  scribe. 

t  Simeon  Cionita  uses  the  expression  to  c^uTEpov  nvp,  "  the  outer  fire,"  Sernt.  xxi.  c.  i. 


I03 

examples.  Semisch  quotes  a  passage  from  Clement  of  Alexandria  {Quts  dives, 
etc.,  c.  13,  p.  942),  in  which  Jesus  is  represented  as  threatening  "  fire  and  the 
outer  darkness "  to  those  who  should  not  feed  the  hungry,  etc.  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria associates  the  two  thus:  "What  darkness  shall  fall  upon  them  .  . .  when 
he  shall  say,  Depart  from  me,  ye  accursed,  into  the  eternal  fire"  etc.  (Ham.  div. 
Opp.  V.  pars  ii.  b,  p.  408  f.)  The  fire  was  conceived  of  as  burning  without 
light.  In  the  case  of  Justin  there  was  a  particular  reason  for  the  confusion  of 
the  "fire"  and  the  "outer  darkness"  from  the  fact  that  he  had  just  before 
quoted  Matt.  viii.  12,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  "  the  outer  darkness"  is  mentioned 
likewise  in  the  same  chapter  of  Matthew  (xxv.  30)  from  which  his  quotation  is 
derived  {Dial.  c.  76). 

Justin's  substitution  of  "  Satan  "  for  "  the  devil "  is  obviously  unimportant.  It 
occurs  in  the  Jerusalem  Syriac  and  iEthiopic  versions,  and  was  natural  in  the 
dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew. 

The  remaining  coincidence  between  Justin  and  the  Clementines  in  their 
variation  from  Matthew  consists  in  the  substitution  of  o  riToi[iaaEv  6  -artjp, 
"which  the  Father  prepared"  (comp.  ver.  34),  for  to  i/roifiaafiivov,  "which  is  [or 
hath  been]  prepared."  This  is  of  no  weight,  as  it  is  merely  an  early  various 
reading  which  Justin  doubtless  found  in  his  text  of  Matthew.  It  still  appears, 
usually  as  "/«y  Father"  for  "  M^  Father,"  in  important  ancient  authorities,  as 
the  Codex  Beza  (D),  the  valuable  cursives  i.  and  22.,  the  principal  MSS.  of  the 
Old  Latin  version  or  versions  (second  century),  in  Iren^us  four  or  five  times 
("pater,"  Hcer.  ii.  7.  §  3;  "pater  meus,"  iii.  23.  §  3:  iv.  33.  §  11  ;  40.  §  2; 
v.  27.  §  I,  alius.),  Origen  in  an  old  Latin  version  four  times  {Opp.  \.  87b, 
allusion;  ii.  177*;  298'i;  iii.  885*),  Cyprian  three  times,  Juvencus,  Hilary 
three  times,  Gaudentius  once,  Augustine,  Leo  Magnus,  and  the  author  of 
De  Fromissis, — for  the  references  to  these,  see  Sabatier;  also  in  Philastrius 
{Har.  114),  SuLPicius  Severus  {Ep.  ii.  ad  Sororem,  c.  7,  Migne  xx.  231c), 
Fastidius  {De  Vit.  Chr.  cc.  10,  13,  M.  1.  393,  399),  Evagrius  presbyter  {Con- 
sult, etc.  iii.  9,  M.  xx.  1164),  Salvian  {Adv.  Avar.  ii.  11 ;  x.  4;  M.  liii.  201,  251), 
and  other  Latin  Fathers  —  but  the  reader  shall  be  spared. —  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria in  an  allusion  to  this  passage  {Cohort,  c.  9,  p.  69)  has  "which  the  Lord 
prepared";  Origen  {Lai.)  reads  six  times  "which  f7^a' prepared "  (Op>p.  ii.  i6i*; 
346*;  416*;  43i<*;  466'';  and  iv.  b.  p.  48*,  ap.  Pamphili  Apol.) ;  and  we  find  the 
same  reading  in  TertuUian,  Gaudentius,  Jerome  (/«  Isa.\.  11),  and  Paulinus 
Nolanus.  Alcimus  Avitus  has  Deus  Fater. —  Hippolytus  {De  Antichr.  c.  65) 
adds  "  which  my  Father  prepared  "  to  the  ordinary  text. 

It  is  clear,  I  think,  from  the  facts  which  have  been  presented,  that  there  is  no 
ground  for  the  conclusion  that  Justin  has  here  quoted  an  apocryphal  Gospel. 
His  variations  from  the  common  text  of  Matthew  are  easily  explained,  and  we 
find  them  all  in  the  quotations  of  the  later  Christian  Fathers. 

In  the  exhibition  of  the  various  readings  of  this  passage,  I  have  ventured  to 
go  a  little  beyond  what  was  absolutely  necessary  for  my  immediate  purpose, 
partly  because  the  critical  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  represent  the 
patristic  authorities  so  incompletely,  but  principally  because  it  seemed  desirable 
to  expose  still  more  fully  the  false  assumption  of  Supernatural  Religion  and 
other  writers  in  their  reasoning  about  the  quotations  of  Justin. 

But  to  return  to  our  main  topic.     We  have  seen  that  there  is  no  direct  evi- 


I04 

dence  of  any  weight  that  Justin  used  either  the  "  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews "  (so  far  as  this  was  distinguished  from  the  Gospel  according  to 
Matthew)  or  the  "Gospel  according  to  Peter."  That  he  should  have  taken 
either  of  these  as  the  source  of  his  quotations,  or  that  either  of  these  constituted 
the  "  Memoirs  "  read  generally  in  public  worship  in  the  Christian  churches  of 
his  time,  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable.  The  "  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews "  was  the  Gospel  exclusively  used  by  the  Ebionites  or  Jewish  Chris- 
tians; and  neither  Justin  nor  the  majority  of  Christians  in  his  time  were 
Ebionites.  The  "Gospel  according  to  Peter"  favored  the  opinions  of  the 
Docetae ;  but  neither  Justin  nor  the  generality  of  Christians  were  Docetists. 
Still  less  can  be  said  in  behalf  of  the  hypothesis  that  any  other  apocryphal 
"  Gospel "  of  which  we  know  anything  constituted  the  "  Memoirs "  which  he 
cites,  if  they  were  one  book,  or  was  included  among  them,  if  they  were  several. 
We  must,  then,  either  admit  that  Justin's  "  Memoirs^'  were  our  four  Gospels, 
a  supposition  which,  I  believe,  fully  explains  all  the  phenomena,  or  resort  to 
Thoma's  hypothesis  of  an  "  X-Gospel,"  i.e.,  a  Gospel  of  which  we  know 
nothing.  The  only  conditions  which  this  "  X-Gospel "  will  then  have  to  fulfil 
will  be :  It  must  have  contained  an  account  of  the  life  and  teaching  of  Christ 
which  Justin  and  the  Christians  of  his  time  believed  to  have  been  "composed 
by  the  Apostles  and  their  companions " ;  it  must  have  been  received  accord- 
ingly as  a  sacred  book,  of  the  highest  authority,  read  in  churches  on  the  Lord's 
day  with  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets ;  and,  almost  immediately 
after  he  wrote,  it  must  have  mysteriously  disappeared  and  fallen  into  oblivion, 
leaving  no  trace  behind.* 

•Compare  Norton,  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  ist  ed.  (1837),  vol.  i.  pp.  225-230;  2d  ed., 
i.  231  f- 


Bs 

R\5 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


